645 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2026 142 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. Gatesgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Vick , 1998 ND 214, ¶ 4 , 587 N.W.2d 567 (noting a district court exercises statutory powers when ordering restitution and applying abuse-of-discretion standard to determine whether the district court acted within statutory limits when ordering restitution); State v. Magnuson , 1997 ND 228, ¶¶ 23, 28 , 571 N.W.2d 642 (noting appellate review of criminal sentences is generally limited to whether the district court acted within statutory limits under the abuse-of-discretion standard); State v. Gates , 540 N.W.2d 134, 137 (N.D. 1995) (stating review of a district court’s decision to 1998See, e.g., State v. Magnuson, 1997 ND 228, ¶ 23 , 571 N.W.2d 642 (noting appellate review of criminal sentences are confined to whether the court acted within the sentencing limits prescribed by statute); State v. Gates, 540 N.W.2d 134, 137 (N.D.1995) (stating the review of a trial court’s decision to revoke probation is an abuse of discretion standard and is confined to whether the judge acted within the limits prescribed by statute); see also Aldridge v. State, 956 P.2d 341, 343 (Wyo.1998) (stating appellate review of restitution orders is confined to a search for procedural error or a clear | 8 | 8 |
State v. Ripleygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Ripley, 2009 ND 105, ¶ 12 , 766 N.W.2d 465 . 2024See State v. Ripley, 2009 ND 105, ¶ 12 , 766 N.W.2d 465 . | 5 | 5 |
| Valentine v. Lutzgreen | 4 | 4 |
| Marriage of Nice-Petersen v. Nice-Petersengreen | 4 | 4 |
| Knudson v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen | 4 | 4 |
Guskjolen v. Guskjolengreen2 sentences2025Id. 2008Guskjolen v. Guskjolen, 391 N.W.2d 639, 641 (N.D.1986). | 3 | 5 |
| State v. Wardnergreen | 3 | 4 |
Gratech Co., Ltd. v. Wold Engineering, PCgreen2 sentences2008“Whether this Court reviews the reasonableness of attorney’s fees under Rule 52 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure or under the abuse of discretion standard, facts are required.” Gratech Co., Ltd. v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 2007 ND 46, ¶ 19 , 729 N.W.2d 326 . 2008“Whether this Court reviews the reasonableness of attorney’s fees under Rule 52 of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure or under the abuse of discretion standard, facts are required.” Gratech Co., Ltd. v. Wold Engineering, P.C., 2007 ND 46, ¶ 19 , 729 N.W.2d 326 . | 2 | 5 |
| State v. Vickgreen | 2 | 5 |
Guardianship & Conservatorship of Thomasgreen2 sentences2015See Thomas, 2006 ND 219, ¶ 7 , 723 N.W.2d 384 (applying “the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s selection of a guardian”). 2015See Thomas, 2006 ND 219, ¶ 7 , 723 N.W.2d 384 (applying “the abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s selection of a guardian”). | 2 | 5 |
| State v. Stewartgreen | 2 | 4 |
| Williston Farm Equipment, Inc. v. Steiger Tractor, Inc.green | 2 | 4 |
| In Re Estate of Hassgreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Fullergreen | 2 | 3 |
| Estate of Hogengreen | 2 | 3 |
Buchholz v. Buchholzgreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 12. [¶9] The district court entered supplemental findings and, in this appeal, Jason Anderson argues the court improperly determined Olivia Foss’s income for child support purposes asserting her child support obligation should be calculated based on a 40-hour work week and $37.97 per hour. [¶10] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of revie 2025Id. ¶ 12. [¶9] The district court entered supplemental findings and, in this appeal, Jason Anderson argues the court improperly determined Olivia Foss’s income for child support purposes asserting her child support obligation should be calculated based on a 40-hour work week and $37.97 per hour. [¶10] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of revie | 1 | 50 |
Verhey v. McKenziegreen2 sentences2025Id. ¶ 12. [¶9] The district court entered supplemental findings and, in this appeal, Jason Anderson argues the court improperly determined Olivia Foss’s income for child support purposes asserting her child support obligation should be calculated based on a 40-hour work week and $37.97 per hour. [¶10] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of revie 2025Id. ¶ 12. [¶9] The district court entered supplemental findings and, in this appeal, Jason Anderson argues the court improperly determined Olivia Foss’s income for child support purposes asserting her child support obligation should be calculated based on a 40-hour work week and $37.97 per hour. [¶10] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of revie | 1 | 11 |
Rath v. Rathgreen2 sentences2025Mary Medical Center, Inc., 233 N.E.3d 1009 , ¶ 25 (Ind. App. 2024) (judge not disqualified due to son’s economic interest because his son who worked for law firm for defendant did not work on case and was not a partner at the law firm with a pecuniary interest in the outcome). [¶38] “A district court’s decision on a motion for recusal is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, ¶ 14 , 840 N.W.2d 656 . 2025Mary Medical Center, Inc., 233 N.E.3d 1009 , ¶ 25 (Ind. App. 2024) (judge not disqualified due to son’s economic interest because his son who worked for law firm for defendant did not work on case and was not a partner at the law firm with a pecuniary interest in the outcome). [¶38] “A district court’s decision on a motion for recusal is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, ¶ 14 , 840 N.W.2d 656 . | 1 | 8 |
State v. Tupagreen2 sentences2017State v. Vick , 1998 ND 214, ¶ 4 , 587 N.W.2d 567 (Appellate review of a trial court’s sentence “will be confined to whether the trial court acted within the limits prescribed by the statute.” This standard of review is similar to the abuse of discretion standard.); State v. Tupa , 2005 ND 25, ¶ 9 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (“The trial judge’s restitution award is within the range of reasonableness and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and, therefore, the trial court acted within the confines of the restitution statute and did not abuse its discretion.”). [¶2] Gerald W. 2017State v. Vick , 1998 ND 214, ¶ 4 , 587 N.W.2d 567 (Appellate review of a trial court’s sentence “will be confined to whether the trial court acted within the limits prescribed by the statute.” This standard of review is similar to the abuse of discretion standard.); State v. Tupa , 2005 ND 25, ¶ 9 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (“The trial judge’s restitution award is within the range of reasonableness and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and, therefore, the trial court acted within the confines of the restitution statute and did not abuse its discretion.”). [¶2] Gerald W. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Lemonsgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Lemons, 2004 ND 44, ¶ 18 , 675 N.W.2d 148 . 2017See State v. Lemons, 2004 ND 44, ¶ 18 , 675 N.W.2d 148 . | 1 | 6 |
| State v. Monsongreen | 1 | 4 |
| 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. Dockter
green
2 sentences2024“We apply a two-step analysis in reviewing a probation revocation. ‘[W]e first review the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and then review the court’s decision to revoke probation under the abuse-of-discretion standard.’” Id. (quoting State v. Dockter, 2019 ND 203, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 98 ) (internal citation omitted). 2024“We apply a two-step analysis in reviewing a probation revocation. ‘[W]e first review the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and then review the court’s decision to revoke probation under the abuse-of-discretion standard.’” Id. (quoting State v. Dockter, 2019 ND 203, ¶ 11 , 932 N.W.2d 98 ) (internal citation omitted). | 9 | 2019–2024 |
State Ex Rel. K.B. v. Bauer
neutral
2 sentences2010K.B. v. Bauer , 2009 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 763 N.W.2d 462 , this Court explained the standards of review applicable to child support determinations: “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Buchholz v. Buchholz , 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11 , 590 N.W.2d 215 . 2010K.B. v. Bauer , 2009 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 763 N.W.2d 462 , this Court explained the standards of review applicable to child support determinations: “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Buchholz v. Buchholz , 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11 , 590 N.W.2d 215 . | 9 | 2010–2023 |
State v. Bingaman
green
2 sentences2015“This Court’s review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Tupa, 2005 ND 25, ¶ 3 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (citing State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 210, ¶ 4 , 655 N.W.2d 57 ; State v. Kensmoe, 2001 ND 190, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 183 ). 2015“This Court’s review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Tupa, 2005 ND 25, ¶ 3 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (citing State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 210, ¶ 4 , 655 N.W.2d 57 ; State v. Kensmoe, 2001 ND 190, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 183 ). | 9 | 2004–2022 |
Lauer v. Lauer
green
2 sentences2008Hewson v. Hewson, 2006 ND 16, ¶ 8 , 708 N.W.2d 889 ; Logan v. Bush, 2000 ND 203, ¶30 , 621 N.W.2d 314 . “‘Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.’ ” Hewson , at ¶ 8, (quoting Lauer v. Lauer, 2000 ND 82, ¶ 3 , 609 N.W.2d 450 ). 2008Hewson v. Hewson, 2006 ND 16, ¶ 8 , 708 N.W.2d 889 ; Logan v. Bush, 2000 ND 203, ¶30 , 621 N.W.2d 314 . “‘Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.’ ” Hewson , at ¶ 8, (quoting Lauer v. Lauer, 2000 ND 82, ¶ 3 , 609 N.W.2d 450 ). | 8 | 2001–2008 |
State v. Ramsey
green
2 sentences2008“A trial court abuses its discretion in eviden-tiary rulings when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id. (quoting State v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 42, ¶ 8 , 692 N.W.2d 498 ). 2008“A trial court abuses its discretion in eviden-tiary rulings when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” Id. (quoting State v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 42, ¶ 8 , 692 N.W.2d 498 ). | 8 | 2005–2008 |
Doepke v. Doepke
green
2 sentences2025“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10, ¶ 6 , 760 N.W.2d 131 . 2011“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10 , ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 131 . | 7 | 2010–2025 |
Doepke v. Doepke
green
2 sentences2025“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10, ¶ 6 , 760 N.W.2d 131 . 2011“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10 , ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 131 . | 7 | 2010–2025 |
State v. Kensmoe
green
2 sentences2015“This Court’s review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Tupa, 2005 ND 25, ¶ 3 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (citing State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 210, ¶ 4 , 655 N.W.2d 57 ; State v. Kensmoe, 2001 ND 190, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 183 ). 2015“This Court’s review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Tupa, 2005 ND 25, ¶ 3 , 691 N.W.2d 579 (citing State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 210, ¶ 4 , 655 N.W.2d 57 ; State v. Kensmoe, 2001 ND 190, ¶ 7 , 636 N.W.2d 183 ). | 7 | 2002–2022 |
State v. Sevigny
green
2 sentences2019Muhle , 2007 ND 131 , ¶ 12, 737 N.W.2d 636 . "[This Court] reviews a district court's evidentiary ruling under an abuse-of-discretion standard." Sevigny , 2006 ND 211 , ¶ 24, 722 N.W.2d 515 . 2019Muhle , 2007 ND 131 , ¶ 12, 737 N.W.2d 636 . "[This Court] reviews a district court's evidentiary ruling under an abuse-of-discretion standard." Sevigny , 2006 ND 211 , ¶ 24, 722 N.W.2d 515 . | 7 | 2007–2019 |
Serr v. Serr
green
2 sentences2008He claims he is the custodial parent of the child, and the district court erred in calculating child support under the provision for equal physical custody. [¶ 10] In Serr, 2008 ND 56, ¶ 18 , 746 N.W.2d 416 (citations omitted), we outlined our standard of review for child support decisions: Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. 2008He claims he is the custodial parent of the child, and the district court erred in calculating child support under the provision for equal physical custody. [¶ 10] In Serr, 2008 ND 56, ¶ 18 , 746 N.W.2d 416 (citations omitted), we outlined our standard of review for child support decisions: Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review. | 7 | 2008–2012 |
McGhee v. Mergenthal
neutral
2 sentences2025“A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” McGhee v. Mergenthal, 2007 ND 120, ¶ 9 , 735 N.W.2d 867 . [¶39] Under N.D. 2025“A court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” McGhee v. Mergenthal, 2007 ND 120, ¶ 9 , 735 N.W.2d 867 . [¶39] Under N.D. | 6 | 2014–2025 |
State v. Hammer
green
2 sentences2024“This Court reviews a district court’s decision to allow the State to amend the information under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Carlson, 2016 ND 130, ¶ 6 , 881 N.W.2d 649 (quoting State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152, ¶ 26 , 787 N.W.2d 716 ). 2019III [¶14] "This Court reviews a district court's decision to allow the State to amend the information under the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Carlson , 2016 ND 130 , ¶ 6, 881 N.W.2d 649 (quoting State v. Hammer , 2010 ND 152 , ¶ 26, 787 N.W.2d 716 ). | 6 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2024“This Court reviews a district court’s decision to allow the State to amend the information under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Carlson, 2016 ND 130, ¶ 6 , 881 N.W.2d 649 (quoting State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152, ¶ 26 , 787 N.W.2d 716 ). 2024“This Court reviews a district court’s decision to allow the State to amend the information under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Carlson, 2016 ND 130, ¶ 6 , 881 N.W.2d 649 (quoting State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152, ¶ 26 , 787 N.W.2d 716 ). | 6 | 2017–2024 |
Grossman v. Lerud
green
2 sentences2024VI [¶67] Stacey Dimmler argues the district court abused its discretion by not ordering child support retroactive to the date of her motion requesting child support. [¶68] Our standard of review for child support determinations is mixed. “[Q]uestions of law . . . are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact . . . are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Grossman v. Lerud, 2014 ND 235, ¶ 6 , 857 N.W.2d 92 . 2024VI [¶67] Stacey Dimmler argues the district court abused its discretion by not ordering child support retroactive to the date of her motion requesting child support. [¶68] Our standard of review for child support determinations is mixed. “[Q]uestions of law . . . are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact . . . are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Grossman v. Lerud, 2014 ND 235, ¶ 6 , 857 N.W.2d 92 . | 6 | 2017–2024 |
City of Medora v. Golberg
green
2 sentences2018We review a trial court's decision on attorneys fees under the abuse of discretion standard." City of Medora v. Golberg , 1997 ND 190 , ¶ 18, 569 N.W.2d 257 (citation omitted). 2018We review a trial court's decision on attorneys fees under the abuse of discretion standard." City of Medora v. Golberg , 1997 ND 190 , ¶ 18, 569 N.W.2d 257 (citation omitted). | 6 | 2002–2019 |
Berge v. Berge
green
2 sentences2015II [¶ 4] On appeal, Bradley Schiele argues the district court erred in ruling he had an obligation to pay child support while C.B.S. was not living in either party’s home and erred in determining he was not entitled to an offset of his child support obligation for benefits paid on behalf of C.B.S. [¶ 5] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” 2015II [¶ 4] On appeal, Bradley Schiele argues the district court erred in ruling he had an obligation to pay child support while C.B.S. was not living in either party’s home and erred in determining he was not entitled to an offset of his child support obligation for benefits paid on behalf of C.B.S. [¶ 5] “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.” | 6 | 2007–2016 |
T.E.J. v. T.S. ex rel. T.S.
neutral
2 sentences2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . 2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶ 4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . [¶ 6] We have previously dealt with the subject of incarcerated child support obli-gors. | 6 | 2005–2005 |
Tej v. Ts
neutral
2 sentences2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶ 4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . [¶ 6] We have previously dealt with the subject of incarcerated child support obli-gors. 2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . | 6 | 2005–2005 |
Minyard v. Lindseth
neutral
2 sentences2024Minyard v. Lindseth, 2019 ND 180, ¶ 6 , 930 N.W.2d 626 . 2024Minyard v. Lindseth, 2019 ND 180, ¶ 6 , 930 N.W.2d 626 . | 5 | 2020–2024 |
Grand Forks County Social Services v. T.L.
green
2 sentences2020“Under this exception, statements may not be offered to prove the truth of the underlying facts, but only to show the declarant’s state of mind or emotional condition.” Id. [¶28] “When reviewing decisions to admit evidence, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179, ¶ 12 , 773 N.W.2d 798 (citing In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, ¶ 18 , 763 N.W.2d 783 ). 2020“Under this exception, statements may not be offered to prove the truth of the underlying facts, but only to show the declarant’s state of mind or emotional condition.” Id. [¶28] “When reviewing decisions to admit evidence, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard.” Spitzer v. Bartelson, 2009 ND 179, ¶ 12 , 773 N.W.2d 798 (citing In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, ¶ 18 , 763 N.W.2d 783 ). | 5 | 2009–2020 |
| Thimjon Farms Partnership v. First International Bank & Trust green | 5 | 2015–2016 |
| Baker v. Mayer green | 5 | 2005–2010 |
| Edwards v. Edwards green | 5 | 1998–2002 |
| Zander v. Morsette green | 4 | 2024–2026 |
| State v. Schmidkunz green | 4 | 2020–2025 |
| Nesvig v. Nesvig green | 4 | 2006–2024 |
| Carpenter v. Rohrer green | 4 | 2013–2024 |
| Orwig v. Orwig green | 4 | 2024–2024 |
| Titan Machinery, Inc. v. Patterson Enterprises, Inc. neutral | 4 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Azure green | 4 | 2019–2023 |
| Oien v. Oien green | 4 | 2006–2023 |
| State v. Loughead green | 4 | 2014–2020 |
| State v. Vandermeer green | 4 | 2017–2019 |
| Martin v. Trinity Hospital green | 4 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Klose green | 4 | 2004–2018 |
| Wolf v. Estate of Seright green | 4 | 1999–2012 |
| Schlossman & Gunkelman, Inc. v. Tallman green | 4 | 2001–2012 |
| GRAD EX REL. JANDA v. Jepson green | 4 | 2004–2010 |
| Lausen v. Hertz neutral | 4 | 2008–2009 |
| State v. Gendron green | 4 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.