State v. Gagnon, 821 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Gagnon, 821 N.W.2d 378 (N.D. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Kuruc (nd, 2014-05-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Kuruc (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 14 , 821 N.W.2d 373 (concluding law enforcement cannot create an exigency by deciding to approach a residence without a warrant despite ample opportunity to obtain one). [¶15] Here, the exigency of destruction of evidence was created by the officer’s actions in entering the constitutionally protected space.
examined Cited "see" State v. Kuruc (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 14 , 821 N.W.2d 373 (concluding law enforcement cannot create an exigency by deciding to approach a residence without a warrant despite ample opportunity to obtain one). [¶14] Here, the exigency of destruction of evidence was created by the officer’s actions in entering the constitutionally protected space.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Kuruc (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.D. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 14 , 821 N.W.2d 373 (concluding law enforcement cannot create an exigency by deciding to approach a residence without a warrant despite ample opportunity to obtain one). [¶15] Here, the exigency of destruction of evidence was created by the officer’s actions in entering the constitutionally protected space.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Schmidt
N.D. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Schmidt, 2015 ND 134, ¶ 11 , 864 N.W.2d 265 (concluding that a misdemeanor bench warrant provides law enforcement the authority to enter a residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the warrant); see also Gagnon, 2012 ND 198, ¶12 , 821 N.W.2d 373 (“The ‘plain view’ doctrine only applies when an officer is legitimately in a constitutionally protected area.”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Schmidt
N.D. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Schmidt , 2015 ND 134, ¶ 11 , 864 N.W.2d 265 (concluding that a misdemeanor bench warrant provides law enforcement the authority to enter a residence of the person named in the warrant in order to execute the warrant); see also Gagnon , 2012 ND 198, ¶ 12 , 821 N.W.2d 373 (“The ‘plain view’ doctrine only applies when an officer is legitimately in a constitutionally protected area.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Gagnon
20110311.
North Dakota Supreme Court.
Sep 25, 2012.
✓ 821 N.W.2d 378
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

Filed 9/25/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 196

The State of North Dakota, doing business as

The Bank of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Robert A. Brown, MDU Resources Group, Inc.,

d/b/a Montana-Dakota Utilities, and City of Halliday, Defendants

Robert A. Brown, Appellant

No. 20120145

Appeal from the District Court of Dunn County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Zane Anderson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Douglas B. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General, 500 North 9th Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for plaintiff and appellee.

Robert A. Brown, self-represented, 118 2nd Street Northwest, Halliday, N.D. 58636, defendant and appellant; on brief.

Bank of North Dakota v. Brown

No. 20120145

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Robert Brown appeals from a judgment granting the State, doing business as the Bank of North Dakota, foreclosure of its mortgage on property Brown owned.  Brown argues the district court erred by failing to require the Bank to produce the original mortgage documents and in granting summary judgment because the Bank engaged in misconduct by breaking into his house and changing the locks.  We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting copies of the mortgage documents and Brown failed to produce competent, admissible evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact.  We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6) and (7).   See Dakota Bank & Trust Co. of Bismarck v. Reed , 402 N.W.2d 887, 889 (N.D. 1987) (under N.D.R.Ev. 1003 copies of documents are admissible to the same extent as the originals unless a genuine question is raised about authenticity).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring