9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of LJgreen2 sentences2012In re E.G., 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 11, 716 N.W.2d 469 (quoting In re L.J., 436 N.W.2d 558, 561 (N.D.1989)). [¶ 15] Parents of special-needs children do not have a lesser standard that must be met to maintain their parental rights and prevent a finding of abandonment; rather, a finding on abandonment will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 2012In re E.G. , 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 11, 716 N.W.2d 469 (quoting In re L.J. , 436 N.W.2d 558, 561 (N.D. 1989)). [¶15] Parents of special-needs children do not have a lesser standard that must be met to maintain their parental rights and prevent a finding of abandonment; rather, a finding on abandonment will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. | 2 | 2 |
KN v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., K.N. v. State, 856 P.2d 468, 476 (Alaska 1993); In re Annette P., 589 A.2d 924 , 928 n. 8 (Me.1991). 2001See, e.g., K.N. v. State, 856 P.2d 468, 476 (Alaska 1993); In re Annette P., 589 A.2d 924 , 928 n. 8 (Me.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Baum v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600, 619-20 (Alaska App.2000); Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
Grinols v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600, 619-20 (Alaska App.2000); Baum v. State, 533 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 (Ind.1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grubbsgreen1 sentence1996Considered in the context of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, a “firm belief or conviction” is not comparable to a “firm and abiding conviction.” We believe the word “firm,” as it is used in the jury instruction on reasonable doubt, refers to “the certainty that the evidence supports the crime charged.” See, e.g., State v. Grubbs, 644 So.2d 1105, 1114 (La.Ct.App.1994) (analyzing the word “firmly”). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Interest of E.G.
green
2 sentences2012In re E.G., 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 11, 716 N.W.2d 469 (quoting In re L.J., 436 N.W.2d 558, 561 (N.D.1989)). [¶ 15] Parents of special-needs children do not have a lesser standard that must be met to maintain their parental rights and prevent a finding of abandonment; rather, a finding on abandonment will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 2012In re E.G., 2006 ND 126 , ¶ 11, 716 N.W.2d 469 (quoting In re L.J., 436 N.W.2d 558, 561 (N.D.1989)). [¶ 15] Parents of special-needs children do not have a lesser standard that must be met to maintain their parental rights and prevent a finding of abandonment; rather, a finding on abandonment will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In Re Annette P.
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., K.N. v. State, 856 P.2d 468, 476 (Alaska 1993); In re Annette P., 589 A.2d 924 , 928 n. 8 (Me.1991). 2001See, e.g., K.N. v. State, 856 P.2d 468, 476 (Alaska 1993); In re Annette P., 589 A.2d 924 , 928 n. 8 (Me.1991). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Clayton M. Brown
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 811 n, 4 (“In Knights, because both parties conceded that the officer had a' reasonable suspicion, the Court reserved the issue of whether a lesser standard would satisfy the Fourth Amendment.... 2016Id. at 811 n.4 (“In Knights , because both parties conceded that the officer had a reasonable suspicion, the Court reserved the issue of whether a lesser standard would satisfy the Fourth Amendment . . . . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993In Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or.App. 480 , 635 P.2d 657 (1981), although not involving discriminatory conduct, but involving an employer/employee relationship (or supervisory/subservient relationship), the court said: “An employer has even more authority over an employee [than a landlord has over a tenant], who, by the nature of the relationship, is subject to the direction and control of the employer and may be discharged for any or no reason, absent an agreement restricting that authority. 1993In Bodewig v. K-Mart, Inc., 54 Or.App. 480 , 635 P.2d 657 (1981), although not involving discriminatory conduct, but involving an employer/employee relationship (or supervisory/subservient relationship), the court said: “An employer has even more authority over an employee [than a landlord has over a tenant], who, by the nature of the relationship, is subject to the direction and control of the employer and may be discharged for any or no reason, absent an agreement restricting that authority. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Mische
green
1 sentence1990Without determining whether or not the information met the higher standard of probable cause to arrest Rodriguez [Cf. State v. Mische, 448 N.W.2d 412 (N.D.1989) ], that information surely met the lesser standard of articu-lable suspicion that the motorist violated the law which is sufficient to entitle the officer to make a legal investigative stop of the vehicle. 2 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.