6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Madison v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences1996This court, however, has recognized that bad faith is not the only basis for ameliorating the impact of lost or destroyed evidence: “If there is a ‘systemic disregard,’ Madison v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246 (N.D.1993), of the ‘State’s duty to zealously protect evidence in its possession,’ Steffes at 614 n. 5, so that ‘haphazard handling and destruction of evidence ... is commonplace,’ Steffes , the adoption of prophylactic measures, such as an adverse-inference instruction, may be justified in cases of a failure to preserve evidence in order to protect defendants from t 1996This court, however, has recognized that bad faith is not the only basis for ameliorating the impact of lost or destroyed evidence: "If there is a `systemic disregard,' Madison v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246 (N.D.1993), of the `State's duty to zealously protect evidence in its possession,' Steffes at 614 n. 5, so that `haphazard handling and destruction of evidence... is commonplace,' Steffes , the adoption of prophylactic measures, such as an adverse-inference instruction, may be justified in cases of a failure to preserve evidence in order to protect defendants from th | 2 | 2 |
Arizona v. Youngbloodgreen2 sentences2006These states take authority from Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion in Arizona v. Youngblood wherein he wrote: “there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to prove that the State acted in bad, faith but in which the loss or destruction of evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 61 , 109 S.Ct. 333 (Stevens, J. concurring)). 2006These states take authority from Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion in Arizona v. Youngblood wherein he wrote: “there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to prove that the State acted in bad, faith but in which the loss or destruction of evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 61 , 109 S.Ct. 333 (Stevens, J. concurring)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnettgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. | 1 | 1 |
City of Bismarck v. Holdengreen2 sentences1996This court, however, has recognized that bad faith is not the only basis for ameliorating the impact of lost or destroyed evidence: “If there is a ‘systemic disregard,’ Madison v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246 (N.D.1993), of the ‘State’s duty to zealously protect evidence in its possession,’ Steffes at 614 n. 5, so that ‘haphazard handling and destruction of evidence ... is commonplace,’ Steffes , the adoption of prophylactic measures, such as an adverse-inference instruction, may be justified in cases of a failure to preserve evidence in order to protect defendants from t 1996This court, however, has recognized that bad faith is not the only basis for ameliorating the impact of lost or destroyed evidence: "If there is a `systemic disregard,' Madison v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246 (N.D.1993), of the `State's duty to zealously protect evidence in its possession,' Steffes at 614 n. 5, so that `haphazard handling and destruction of evidence... is commonplace,' Steffes , the adoption of prophylactic measures, such as an adverse-inference instruction, may be justified in cases of a failure to preserve evidence in order to protect defendants from th | 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. Steffes
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. 2006These states take authority from Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion in Arizona v. Youngblood wherein he wrote: “there may well be cases in which the defendant is unable to prove that the State acted in bad, faith but in which the loss or destruction of evidence is nonetheless so critical to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.” Id. (quoting Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 61 , 109 S.Ct. 333 (Stevens, J. concurring)). | 2 | 2006–2014 |
State v. Haibeck
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. 2014See, e.g., Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶31 , 817 N.W.2d 332 ; Haibeck, 2006 ND 100, ¶8 , 714 N.W.2d 52 ; State v. Barnett, 543 N.W.2d 774, 778 (N.D.1996); Steffen, 500 N.W.2d at 611 n. 3. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw) v. National Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence1974In contrast, the adverse inference rule excludes no evidence.” International Union (UAW) v. N.L.R.B., 459 F.2d 1329, 1339 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.