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.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2020–2025 10 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. Rourkegreen2 sentences2025State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (This Court “need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”). [¶3] Alg also argues the jury instructions were improper because the essential elements did not identify specific conduct and as a result, the jury was not required to be in unanimous agreement when it convicted him. 2025State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (This Court “need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”). [¶3] Alg also argues the jury instructions were improper because the essential elements did not identify specific conduct and as a result, the jury was not required to be in unanimous agreement when it convicted him. | 4 | 9 |
State v. Rellergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Reller, 2024 ND 105, ¶ 2 , 7 N.W.3d 252 (“This Court ‘need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error . . . .’” (quoting State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 )). 2024See State v. Reller, 2024 ND 105, ¶ 2 , 7 N.W.3d 252 (“This Court ‘need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error . . . .’” (quoting State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 )). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hansfordgreen2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). | 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. Thomas
green
2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). | 3 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Henes
green
2 sentences2025IV [¶15] Taylor asserts the district court imposed an illegal sentence because the age of 15, rather than the age of 18, was used to determine his life expectancy. [¶16] “A district court is afforded wide discretion in sentencing.” State v. Henes, 2009 ND 42, ¶ 6 , 763 N.W.2d 502 . 2025IV [¶15] Taylor asserts the district court imposed an illegal sentence because the age of 15, rather than the age of 18, was used to determine his life expectancy. [¶16] “A district court is afforded wide discretion in sentencing.” State v. Henes, 2009 ND 42, ¶ 6 , 763 N.W.2d 502 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sah
green
2 sentences2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). 2025State v. Thomas, 2020 ND 30, ¶ 14 , 938 N.W.2d 897 ; see State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8 , 893 N.W.2d 176 (“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”); State v. Sah, 2020 ND 38, ¶ 9 , 938 N.W.2d 912 (declining to address obvious error when appellant did not argue it); see also State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52, ¶ 29 , 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
City of Fargo v. Lunday
green
1 sentence2025“We need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, 5 because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.” Id. [¶14] We decline to exercise our discretion to consider whether the district court obviously erred. | 1 | 2025–2025 |