 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Riemers v. City of Grand Forks, No. 20060057,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of a city on a resident's open records request, by relying upon the Attorney General's opinion, or by holding the requested evidence logs were exempt from disclosure under N.D. Cent. Code § 44-04-18.7 at the time of the resident's request.
|
|||||
| Sambursky v. State, Nos. 20050330-20050335,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in summarily dismissing, under N.D. Cent. Code § 29-32.1-09(1), postconviction relief claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as petitioner's claim that his attorney did not inform him concerning minimum amount of time he would be required to spend in prison pursuant to guilty plea satisfied both prongs of Strickland test.
|
|||||
| State v. Buchholz, Nos. 20060044 & 20060061,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly prohibited from arguing a mistake of law defense under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-09 because his offense of possession of a firearm by a felon under N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-02-01(2) was a strict liability offense and prior sentence was not illegal where it did not address whether defendant could possess firearm after probation.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 20060033,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant appealed a judgment after a jury found him guilty of carrying a concealed firearm and possessing a short-barreled shotgun; however, because the record was inadequate to determine whether defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, the court summarily affirmed the judgment under N.D. R. App. P. 35.1(a)(3).
|
|||||
| State v. Just, No. 20060146,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if trial court might have erred in finding that the phrase "window or other aperture" was not an essential element of surreptitious intrusion under N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-20-12.2(1)(d), defendant was not entitled to arrest of judgment under N.D. R. Crim. P. 34 because any error was harmless as jury considered phrase and no prejudice was shown.
|
|||||
| N.D. Disciplinary Bd. v. Bullis (In re Bullis), No. 20060132,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attorney disciplinary action, the supreme court determined an attorney violated N.D. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a), (b), and (c), and 1.8(a) and (b) because an attorney's conduct was pervasive and demonstrated an indifference to basic conflict of interest considerations when the attorney represented several clients involved in an investment.
|
|||||
| Tverberg v. Workforce Safety & Ins., No. 20060064,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker's compensation claimant, whose back was injured when he was employed as an equipment operator for a construction firm, challenged termination of his award. Nevertheless, sufficient evidence existed to sustain conclusion that claimant was unwilling to complete rehabilitation training pursuant to options under N.D. Cent. Code § 65-05.1-01(4).
|
|||||
| Disciplinary Board v. Aakre (In re Aakre), No. 20060260,
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA, November 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney's actions violated N.D. R. Lawyer Disc. 1.2 and N.D. R. Prof'l Conduct 3.4 and 8.4, through violation of N.D. Cent. Code § 27-13-01(1). The attorney was suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months, and was ordered to pay costs in the amount of $1,000.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
