12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1961–2015 0 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. Olsongreen2 sentences2012State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 (“[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the trial court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions^]”); State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110, 114 (N.D.1984) (“If a defendant desires more comprehensive instructions on any phase of the case, he must submit written instructions with the request that they be given.... [I]t [is] counsel’s duty to draft a specific instruction ... and to submit it to the trial judge.”); see also NJD.R.Crim.P. 30(a)(1) (“A party 2012State v. Erickstad , 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 (“[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the trial court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions[.]”); State v. Olson , 356 N.W.2d 110, 114 (N.D. 1984) (“If a defendant desires more comprehensive instructions on any phase of the case, he must submit written instructions with the request that they be given. . . . [I]t [is] counsel’s duty to draft a specific instruction . . . and to submit it to the trial judge.”); see also N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(a)(1) ( | 3 | 4 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2015N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(a); see also State v. Miller , 466 N.W.2d 128, 133 (N.D. 1991) (the defendant must request a specific instruction in writing if he desires a more comprehensive instruction than what the court indicated it will give). 2015N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(a); see also State v. Miller, 466 N.W.2d 128, 133 (N.D.1991) (the defendant must request a specific instruction in writing if he desires a more comprehensive instruction than what the court indicated it will give). | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Erickstad
green
2 sentences2015Here, Kordonowy did not request the court include the applicable portions of the statute in its instructions, and his requested instruction did not correctly and adequately inform the jury of the law; [¶ 27] “[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the [district] court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given.” State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 . 2015Here, Kordonowy did not request the court include the applicable portions of the statute in its instructions, and his requested instruction did not correctly and adequately inform the jury of the law; [¶ 27] “[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the [district] court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given.” State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 202, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 136 . | 4 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Mathre
green
2 sentences2015“Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c), failure to object at trial to jury instructions when there was an opportunity to do so operates as a waiver of the right on appeal to complain of instructions that either were or were not given.” State v. Mathre, 2004 ND 149, ¶ 21 , 683 N.W.2d 918 . “[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the [district] court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given.” State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND 2015“Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c), failure to object at trial to jury instructions when there was an opportunity to do so operates as a waiver of the right on appeal to complain of instructions that either were or were not given.” State v. Mathre, 2004 ND 149, ¶ 21 , 683 N.W.2d 918 . “[I]f a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the [district] court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given.” State v. Erickstad, 2000 ND | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Sack v. Sack
green
1 sentence2008Id. [¶ 14] Permanent spousal support and rehabilitative spousal support are two distinct remedies. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 387-88 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 . [¶ 18] Similarly, if a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the trial court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given. 2000Id. at 387-88 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 . [¶ 18] Similarly, if a defendant desires a more comprehensive instruction on any point of law than what the trial court has indicated it will give, the defendant must request specific written instructions, and if the defendant fails to do so he cannot predicate error upon omissions in the charge given. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence2000Barnes, 551 N.W.2d at 281 ; State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110, 114 (N.D.1984). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Eck v. City of Bismarck
green
1 sentence1983Cases and authorities that may be applicable to this determination are cited in the comprehensive analysis made by Justice VandeWalle in Eck v. City of Bismarck, 283 N.W.2d 193 (N.D.1979) (Eck I). 2 See also Rippley v. City of Lincoln, 330 N.W.2d 505 (N.D.1983), and Eck v. City of Bismarck, 302 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1981) (Eck II). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Eck v. City of Bismarck
green
1 sentence1983Cases and authorities that may be applicable to this determination are cited in the comprehensive analysis made by Justice VandeWalle in Eck v. City of Bismarck, 283 N.W.2d 193 (N.D.1979) (Eck I). 2 See also Rippley v. City of Lincoln, 330 N.W.2d 505 (N.D.1983), and Eck v. City of Bismarck, 302 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1981) (Eck II). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rippley v. City of Lincoln
green
1 sentence1983Cases and authorities that may be applicable to this determination are cited in the comprehensive analysis made by Justice VandeWalle in Eck v. City of Bismarck, 283 N.W.2d 193 (N.D.1979) (Eck I). 2 See also Rippley v. City of Lincoln, 330 N.W.2d 505 (N.D.1983), and Eck v. City of Bismarck, 302 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1981) (Eck II). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Fisher v. Suko
green
1 sentence1968Fisher v. Suko, supra. We conclude that the challenges to the rulings of the court during the trial and to the instructions cannot be sustained as errors of law. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . 1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . 1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Halverson v. Lasell
green
2 sentences1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . 1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Kroeger v. Safranek
green
2 sentences1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . 1961McGregor v. Great Northern Railway Co., 31 N.D. 471 , 154 N.W. 261 , Ann.Cas.l917E, 141; Buchanan v. Occident Elevator Co., 33 N.D. 346 , 157 N.W. 122 ; Halverson v. Lasell, 33 N.D. 613 , 157 N.W. 682 ; Kroeger v. Safranek, 165 Neb. 636 , 87 N.W.2d 221 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.