7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1964–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2014The plain language of the statute states, “An applicant may not claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in proceedings under this chapter.” N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating “There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.”). [¶ 16] Nevertheless, Lehman contends the court erred in dismissing his petition in light of Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). 2014The plain language of the statute states, “An applicant may not claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in proceedings under this chapter.” N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating “There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.”). [¶ 16] Nevertheless, Lehman contends the court erred in dismissing his petition in light of Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Mrotek v. Nairgreen2 sentences2010App. Div. 1984) (concluding that a bar admission applicant was not entitled to various information concerning his bar examination scores because the process of admission is a judicial function and the legislature did not intend to interfere by enacting the freedom of information law); Mrotek v. Nair , 231 A.2d 95, 96-100 (Conn. Cir. Ct. 1967) (affirming dismissal for a lack of jurisdiction in a case in which an applicant to the bar sought to review bar examining committee records because the superior court had the sole and exclusive power to admit persons to the bar). 2010Ct. 313, 231 A.2d 95, 96-100 (1967) (affirming dismissal for a lack of jurisdiction in a case in which an applicant to the bar sought to review bar examining committee records because the superior court had the sole and exclusive power to admit persons to the bar). | 2 | 2 |
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2010See generally Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“It is uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. 2010See generally Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 , 98 S.Ct. 1306 , 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (“It is uncontested, however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. | 2 | 2 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019See Lehman v. State , 2014 ND 103 , ¶ 15, 847 N.W.2d 119 (citing Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating "There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.")). [¶10] We evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) framework. 2019See Lehman v. State , 2014 ND 103 , ¶ 15, 847 N.W.2d 119 (citing Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating "There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.")). [¶10] We evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) framework. | 1 | 1 |
Lehman v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Lehman v. State , 2014 ND 103 , ¶ 15, 847 N.W.2d 119 (citing Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating "There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.")). [¶10] We evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) framework. 2019See Lehman v. State , 2014 ND 103 , ¶ 15, 847 N.W.2d 119 (citing Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating "There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.")). [¶10] We evaluate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) framework. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Ryangreen2 sentences2014The plain language of the statute states, “An applicant may not claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in proceedings under this chapter.” N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating “There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.”). [¶ 16] Nevertheless, Lehman contends the court erred in dismissing his petition in light of Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). 2014The plain language of the statute states, “An applicant may not claim constitutionally ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel in proceedings under this chapter.” N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (stating “There is no constitutional right to an attorney in state post-conviction proceedings.”). [¶ 16] Nevertheless, Lehman contends the court erred in dismissing his petition in light of Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1309 , 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murchison v. State
green
2 sentences2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review 2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Syvertson v. State
green
2 sentences2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review 2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hughes v. State
green
2 sentences2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review 2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Klose v. State
green
2 sentences2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review 2018Klose v. State , 2008 ND 143 , ¶ 12, 752 N.W.2d 192 (noting ineffective assistance of counsel claims that could have been raised in a prior proceeding are barred by res judicata); Hughes v. State , 2002 ND 28 , ¶¶ 11-13, 639 N.W.2d 696 (concluding the applicant did not raise the issue of prosecutorial misconduct and other matters in the district court or on direct appeal, and the district court did not err in summarily dismissing for misuse of process); Syvertson v. State , 2000 ND 185 , ¶ 17, 620 N.W.2d 362 (determining the issues raised by the applicant would have been appropriate for review | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dickinson Education Association v. Dickinson Public School District
neutral
2 sentences2018Section 32-34-01, N.D.C.C., governs the issuance of writs of mandamus: The writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme and district courts to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from which the party is precluded unlawfully by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person. [¶8] “Whether to issue a writ of mandamus is left to the d 2018Section 32-34-01, N.D.C.C., governs the issuance of writs of mandamus: The writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme and district courts to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from which the party is precluded unlawfully by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person. [¶8] “Whether to issue a writ of mandamus is left to the d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Atlantic Refining Co. v. Gulf Land Co.
neutral
1 sentence1964In Atlantic Refining Co. v. Gulf Land Co., 122 S.W.2d 197, 199 , the Texas Court of Civil Appeals stated: “ * * * It is now settled that one acquiring land or a leasehold estate therein must contract with reference to, and not so as to necessitate an exception to, rule 37, in order to secure a vested right which he is entitled to have protected.” The rule above stated has been applied in most cases to situations where, after a spacing area has been established, the applicant for an exception has acquired land or a leasehold of an area smaller than the established spacing area, and has claimed | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.