de novo standard in North Dakota

2010K.B. v. Bauer , 2009 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 763 N.W.2d 462 , this Court explained the standards of review applicable to child support determinations: “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Buchholz v. Buchholz , 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11 , 590 N.W.2d 215 .

2010K.B. v. Bauer , 2009 ND 45, ¶ 8 , 763 N.W.2d 462 , this Court explained the standards of review applicable to child support determinations: “Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Buchholz v. Buchholz , 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11 , 590 N.W.2d 215 .

2018Under this standard, we review the "questions of law subject to the de novo standard of review [and the] findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review." Wigginton v. Wigginton , 2005 ND 31 , ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 108 .

2018Under this standard, we review the "questions of law subject to the de novo standard of review [and the] findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review." Wigginton v. Wigginton , 2005 ND 31 , ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 108 .

2019Therefore, the court's order without prejudice is considered final and appealable. [¶4] The district court's order ruled on the issue of personal jurisdiction which is fully reviewable on appeal: "Analysis of a [district] court's ruling regarding personal jurisdiction is a question of law, and we use the de novo standard of review for legal conclusions and a clearly erroneous standard for factual findings." Bolinske v. Herd , 2004 ND 217 , ¶ 7, 689 N.W.2d 397 .

2019Therefore, the court's order without prejudice is considered final and appealable. [¶4] The district court's order ruled on the issue of personal jurisdiction which is fully reviewable on appeal: "Analysis of a [district] court's ruling regarding personal jurisdiction is a question of law, and we use the de novo standard of review for legal conclusions and a clearly erroneous standard for factual findings." Bolinske v. Herd , 2004 ND 217 , ¶ 7, 689 N.W.2d 397 .

2025“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10, ¶ 6 , 760 N.W.2d 131 .

2011“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10 , ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 131 .

2025“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10, ¶ 6 , 760 N.W.2d 131 .

2011“A court errs as a matter of law if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.” Doepke v. Doepke, 2009 ND 10 , ¶ 6, 760 N.W.2d 131 .

2008He claims he is the custodial parent of the child, and the district court erred in calculating child support under the provision for equal physical custody. [¶ 10] In Serr, 2008 ND 56, ¶ 18 , 746 N.W.2d 416 (citations omitted), we outlined our standard of review for child support decisions: Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.

2008He claims he is the custodial parent of the child, and the district court erred in calculating child support under the provision for equal physical custody. [¶ 10] In Serr, 2008 ND 56, ¶ 18 , 746 N.W.2d 416 (citations omitted), we outlined our standard of review for child support decisions: Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.

2025II [¶6] Bibler claims the district court erred in reducing the length of the evidentiary hearing and the reduction was a due process violation. [¶7] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review when reviewing an alleged violation of a constitutional right.” State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 .

2025II [¶6] Bibler claims the district court erred in reducing the length of the evidentiary hearing and the reduction was a due process violation. [¶7] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review when reviewing an alleged violation of a constitutional right.” State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 .

2015“Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Id.

2014“Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Genre , 2006 ND 77, ¶ 12 , 712 N.W.2d 624 (citation omitted).

2024VI [¶67] Stacey Dimmler argues the district court abused its discretion by not ordering child support retroactive to the date of her motion requesting child support. [¶68] Our standard of review for child support determinations is mixed. “[Q]uestions of law . . . are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact . . . are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Grossman v. Lerud, 2014 ND 235, ¶ 6 , 857 N.W.2d 92 .

2024VI [¶67] Stacey Dimmler argues the district court abused its discretion by not ordering child support retroactive to the date of her motion requesting child support. [¶68] Our standard of review for child support determinations is mixed. “[Q]uestions of law . . . are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact . . . are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.” Grossman v. Lerud, 2014 ND 235, ¶ 6 , 857 N.W.2d 92 .

2005B. [¶ 9] In the recent case of Ensign v. Bank of Baker, 2004 ND 56 , 676 N.W.2d 786 , we discussed the requirements for personal jurisdiction: Whether a court maintains personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law, and we review the district court’s decision on the matter by employing the de novo standard, for legal conclusions and the clear-error standard for factual findings.

2005B. [¶ 9] In the recent case of Ensign v. Bank of Baker, 2004 ND 56 , 676 N.W.2d 786 , we discussed the requirements for personal jurisdiction: Whether a court maintains personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law, and we review the district court’s decision on the matter by employing the de novo standard, for legal conclusions and the clear-error standard for factual findings.

2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶ 4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . [¶ 6] We have previously dealt with the subject of incarcerated child support obli-gors.

2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 .

2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶ 4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 . [¶ 6] We have previously dealt with the subject of incarcerated child support obli-gors.

2005T.E.J. v. T.S., 2004 ND 120, ¶4 , 681 N.W.2d 444 .

2012“This Court applies a de novo standard of review when reviewing an alleged violation of a constitutional right.” State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 (citing State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 6 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). [¶ 23] Here, the information charging the conspiracy to commit murder cited the murder statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01, and did not cite subsections a, b, or c, identifying intentional, extreme indifference, or “felony murder”: [T]he above-named defendant, agreed with one or more people, explicitly or implicitly, to engage in or cause conduct which, in fact constitutes th

2012“This Court applies a de novo standard of review when reviewing an alleged violation of a constitutional right.” State v. Sorenson, 2009 ND 147, ¶ 16 , 770 N.W.2d 701 (citing State v. Blue, 2006 ND 134, ¶ 6 , 717 N.W.2d 558 ). [¶ 23] Here, the information charging the conspiracy to commit murder cited the murder statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01, and did not cite subsections a, b, or c, identifying intentional, extreme indifference, or “felony murder”: [T]he above-named defendant, agreed with one or more people, explicitly or implicitly, to engage in or cause conduct which, in fact constitutes th

2024“This Court applies a de novo standard of review when determining ‘whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation, including a claim that prosecutorial misconduct denied a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.’” State v. Jasmann, 2015 ND 101, ¶ 5 , 862 N.W.2d 809 (quoting State v. Pena Garcia, 2012 ND 11, ¶ 6 , 812 N.W.2d 328 ).

2024“This Court applies a de novo standard of review when determining ‘whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation, including a claim that prosecutorial misconduct denied a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.’” State v. Jasmann, 2015 ND 101, ¶ 5 , 862 N.W.2d 809 (quoting State v. Pena Garcia, 2012 ND 11, ¶ 6 , 812 N.W.2d 328 ).

2023However, when the defendant does not object to the alleged errors at trial, as in this case, “our review is limited to determining if the prosecutor’s conduct prejudicially affected [the defendant’s] 4 substantial rights, so as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quoting State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 22 , 606 N.W.2d 108 ).

2014However, Patterson did not object to these alleged errors at trial; “thus[,] our review is limited to determining if the prosecutor’s conduct prejudicially affected [Patterson’s] substantial rights, so as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quoting State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 22 , 606 N.W.2d 108 ).

2023However, when the defendant does not object to the alleged errors at trial, as in this case, “our review is limited to determining if the prosecutor’s conduct prejudicially affected [the defendant’s] 4 substantial rights, so as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quoting State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 22 , 606 N.W.2d 108 ).

2014However, Patterson did not object to these alleged errors at trial; “thus[,] our review is limited to determining if the prosecutor’s conduct prejudicially affected [Patterson’s] substantial rights, so as to deprive him of a fair trial.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quoting State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 22 , 606 N.W.2d 108 ).

2022A mistrial is an “extreme remedy,” appropriate only when “there is a fundamental defect or occurrence in the proceedings of the trial which makes it evident that further proceedings would be productive of manifest injustice.” Id. [¶8] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review when determining whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation, including a claim that prosecutorial misconduct denied a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.” State v. Foster, 2020 ND 85, ¶ 9 , 942 N.W.2d 829 .

2022A mistrial is an “extreme remedy,” appropriate only when “there is a fundamental defect or occurrence in the proceedings of the trial which makes it evident that further proceedings would be productive of manifest injustice.” Id. [¶8] “This Court applies a de novo standard of review when determining whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation, including a claim that prosecutorial misconduct denied a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.” State v. Foster, 2020 ND 85, ¶ 9 , 942 N.W.2d 829 .

2021We have said that “[w]hether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area is reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Adams, 2018 ND 18, ¶ 9 , 905 N.W.2d 3 758 (citing State v. Williams, 2015 ND 103, ¶ 14 , 862 N.W.2d 831 ) (emphasis added).

2021We have said that “[w]hether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area is reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Adams, 2018 ND 18, ¶ 9 , 905 N.W.2d 3 758 (citing State v. Williams, 2015 ND 103, ¶ 14 , 862 N.W.2d 831 ) (emphasis added).

2002II [¶ 3] We summarized our standard for reviewing child support determinations in Minar v. Minar, 2001 ND 74, ¶ 10 , 625 N.W.2d 518 : Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.

2002II [¶ 3] We summarized our standard for reviewing child support determinations in Minar v. Minar, 2001 ND 74, ¶ 10 , 625 N.W.2d 518 : Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to the de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard of review.

2018"We apply a de novo standard of review to a claim of a constitutional violation." State v. Decker , 2018 ND 43 , ¶ 6, 907 N.W.2d 378 (quoting State v. Aguero , 2010 ND 210 , ¶ 16, 791 N.W.2d 1 ). [¶ 4] A structural error is a "defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself." Johnson v. United States , 520 U.S. 461 , 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 310, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) ).

2018“We apply a de novo standard of review to a claim of a constitutional violation.” State v. Aguero , 2010 ND 210, ¶ 16 , 791 N.W.2d 1 ; see State v. Pe a Garcia , 2012 ND 11 , ¶ 6, 812 N.W.2d 328 (“A de novo standard of review applies to whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation. . . .”).