Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Azuregreen1 sentence1996E.g., State v. Azure, 525 N.W.2d 654, 658 (N.D.1994) (stating “recent United States Supreme Court decisions ... called the pattern instruction into question”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bauer
green
2 sentences2026“The pattern jury instructions are not controlling law, and are published with the caution that they are ‘neither a restatement nor an encyclopedia of the prevailing law.’” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 391 ). 2026The State argues the pattern jury instruction is not a misrepresentation of the law and is a fair and accurate representation of case law. [¶40] Here, in rejecting Krall’s requested instructions, the district court correctly noted the pattern jury instructions are not binding, but concluded the pattern instruction on circumstantial evidence “is a fair and accurate representation of not only case law, but how direct and circumstantial evidence is to be contemplated.” We have explained that “[t]he North Dakota Pattern Jury Instructions are published as a guide by the State Bar Association, in co | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2026“The pattern jury instructions are not controlling law, and are published with the caution that they are ‘neither a restatement nor an encyclopedia of the prevailing law.’” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 391 ). 2026“The pattern jury instructions are not controlling law, and are published with the caution that they are ‘neither a restatement nor an encyclopedia of the prevailing law.’” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 391 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. O'TOOLE
green
2 sentences2022O’Toole, 2009 ND 174, ¶ 12 . 3 [¶11] In O’Toole, we considered a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for reckless endangerment by “creat[ing] a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to another.” 2009 ND 174, ¶ 9 . 2022O’Toole, 2009 ND 174, ¶ 12 . 3 [¶11] In O’Toole, we considered a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for reckless endangerment by “creat[ing] a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to another.” 2009 ND 174, ¶ 9 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Territory v. Bannigan
green
1 sentence1994Azure first argues the instruction is erroneous because it uses the language: “It is the kind of doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in matters of great importance.” Repeated later as: “[A] reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his own affairs.” Azure states this language was rejected in the early case Territory v. Bannigan, 1 Dakota 451 , 46 N.W. 597 (1877). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
United States v. Gainey
green
2 sentences1976We call their attention to Rule 303, Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974); Rule 303 (unenact-ed), Fed.Rules of Evidence Pamph. (1975); United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 , 85 S.Ct. 754 , 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); and 1 Weinstein, Evidence, ¶ 303[07] (1975), as basic references. 1976We call their attention to Rule 303, Uniform Rules of Evidence (1974); Rule 303 (unenact-ed), Fed.Rules of Evidence Pamph. (1975); United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63 , 85 S.Ct. 754 , 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); and 1 Weinstein, Evidence, ¶ 303[07] (1975), as basic references. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.