9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 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. Evansgreen2 sentences2024We further explained a witness’s testimony may include “a mix of lay opinions permitted under N.D.R.Ev. 701, and expert opinions more stringently regulated under N.D.R.Ev. 702.” Wickham, at ¶ 27 (concluding registered nurse’s testimony included a mix of lay and expert opinions); see also id. at ¶ 35 (concluding detective’s lay opinions “crossed the line into expert opinion testimony” when he relied on specialized knowledge and training to form an opinion regarding the defendant’s truthfulness). “[T]he inquiry into whether a lay witness’s opinion constitutes impermissible expert testimony neces 2024We further explained a witness’s testimony may include “a mix of lay opinions permitted under N.D.R.Ev. 701, and expert opinions more stringently regulated under N.D.R.Ev. 702.” Wickham, at ¶ 27 (concluding registered nurse’s testimony included a mix of lay and expert opinions); see also id. at ¶ 35 (concluding detective’s lay opinions “crossed the line into expert opinion testimony” when he relied on specialized knowledge and training to form an opinion regarding the defendant’s truthfulness). “[T]he inquiry into whether a lay witness’s opinion constitutes impermissible expert testimony neces | 2 | 2 |
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Centersgreen1 sentence2015In spoliation of evidence cases, courts should consider factors such as: 1) “the culpability, or state of mind, of the party against whom sanctions are being imposed;” 2) “a finding of prejudice against the moving party, and the degree of this prejudice, including the impact it has on presenting or defending the case;” and 3) “the availability of less severe alternative sanctions.” Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Ctrs., 544 N.W.2d 122, 124-25 (N.D.1996) (Bachmeier II) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Smithgreen1 sentence2013United States v. Smith, 591 F.3d 974, 983 (8th Cir.2010). *611 [¶ 18] In Saulter , this Court recognized “[w]hen an officer relies on all the information gathered in an investigation to offer lay opinion testimony, including information gathered by other officers, he is not presenting the jury with the unique insights of an eyewitness’s personal perceptions as the rule intends.” Saulter, 2009 ND 78, ¶ 13 , 764 N.W.2d 430 . | 1 | 1 |
Bachmeier v. Wallwork Truck Centersgreen2 sentences2012Id. at 534 . 2012Id. at 534. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2001The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor." See Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 370 (as cited in Ringquist, 433 N.W.2d at 213 ) (citation omitted). 2001The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor.” See Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 370 (as cited in Ringquist, 433 N.W.2d at 213 ) (citation omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
R.M. v. T.A.
green
2 sentences2019See Chatterjee v. King , 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (holding a case-by-case analysis is the best way to determine whether a parent has met the openly held out requirement and established a personal, financial, or custodial relationship with the child); R.M. v. T.A. , 233 Cal.App.4th 760 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 836 (2015) (holding the court may consider all circumstances when deciding whether a person has assumed responsibility for a child). 2019See Chatterjee v. King , 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (holding a case-by-case analysis is the best way to determine whether a parent has met the openly held out requirement and established a personal, financial, or custodial relationship with the child); R.M. v. T.A. , 233 Cal.App.4th 760 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 836 (2015) (holding the court may consider all circumstances when deciding whether a person has assumed responsibility for a child). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015“Sanctions for spoliation of evidence require a case-by-case analysis of the facts and circumstances present in each case.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Saulter
green
2 sentences2013United States v. Smith, 591 F.3d 974, 983 (8th Cir.2010). *611 [¶ 18] In Saulter , this Court recognized “[w]hen an officer relies on all the information gathered in an investigation to offer lay opinion testimony, including information gathered by other officers, he is not presenting the jury with the unique insights of an eyewitness’s personal perceptions as the rule intends.” Saulter, 2009 ND 78, ¶ 13 , 764 N.W.2d 430 . 2013United States v. Smith, 591 F.3d 974, 983 (8th Cir.2010). *611 [¶ 18] In Saulter , this Court recognized “[w]hen an officer relies on all the information gathered in an investigation to offer lay opinion testimony, including information gathered by other officers, he is not presenting the jury with the unique insights of an eyewitness’s personal perceptions as the rule intends.” Saulter, 2009 ND 78, ¶ 13 , 764 N.W.2d 430 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ringquist
green
2 sentences2001The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor." See Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 370 (as cited in Ringquist, 433 N.W.2d at 213 ) (citation omitted). 2001The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor.” See Thompson, 369 N.W.2d at 370 (as cited in Ringquist, 433 N.W.2d at 213 ) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences1985The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor." Applying for purposes of this case the Gates "totality of circumstances" analysis to the affidavit as a whole, that is, "giving significance to each relevant piece of information and balancing the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending the tip" [ Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2330 ; Upton, 104 S.Ct. at 2088 ], we conclude that the affidavit of Deputy Ber 1985The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor.” Applying for purposes of this case the Gates “totality of circumstances” analysis to the affidavit as a whole, that is, “giving significance to each relevant piece of information and balancing the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending the tip” [Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2330 ; Upton, 104 S.Ct. at 2088 ], we conclude that the affidavit of Deputy Berg | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Massachusetts v. Upton
green
2 sentences1985The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor." Applying for purposes of this case the Gates "totality of circumstances" analysis to the affidavit as a whole, that is, "giving significance to each relevant piece of information and balancing the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending the tip" [ Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2330 ; Upton, 104 S.Ct. at 2088 ], we conclude that the affidavit of Deputy Ber 1985The Court in Gates stated that Aguilar has provided guidance in determining the existence of probable cause and it is not anticipated that departure from these guidelines will be looked upon with favor.” Applying for purposes of this case the Gates “totality of circumstances” analysis to the affidavit as a whole, that is, “giving significance to each relevant piece of information and balancing the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending the tip” [Gates, 103 S.Ct. at 2330 ; Upton, 104 S.Ct. at 2088 ], we conclude that the affidavit of Deputy Berg | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.