Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1899–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlikgreen2 sentences2009City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). 2009City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). | 2 | 2 |
City of Fairgo v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2009SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring. [¶ 17] I write separately to note that the majority's somewhat truncated statement of our standard of review at ¶ 7 does not reflect a change from the standard of review established by City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D. 1994), and set forth more fully in the majority-cited opinion, State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 19-20 , 615 N.W.2d 515 : When reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court's findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. 2009SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring. [¶ 17] I write separately to note that the majority’s somewhat truncated statement of our standard of review at ¶ 7 does not reflect a change from the standard of review established by City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994), and set forth more fully in the majority-cited opinion, State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 19-20 , 615 N.W.2d 515 : When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. | 2 | 2 |
| 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. Gregg
green
2 sentences2009SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring. [¶ 17] I write separately to note that the majority’s somewhat truncated statement of our standard of review at ¶ 7 does not reflect a change from the standard of review established by City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994), and set forth more fully in the majority-cited opinion, State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 19-20 , 615 N.W.2d 515 : When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. 2009SANDSTROM, Justice, concurring. [¶ 17] I write separately to note that the majority’s somewhat truncated statement of our standard of review at ¶ 7 does not reflect a change from the standard of review established by City of Fargo v. Thompson, 520 N.W.2d 578, 581 (N.D.1994), and set forth more fully in the majority-cited opinion, State v. Gregg, 2000 ND 154, ¶¶ 19-20 , 615 N.W.2d 515 : When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the district court’s findings of fact and resolve conflicts in testimony in favor of affirmance. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
City of Grand Forks v. Egley
green
2 sentences2009City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). 2009City of Grand Forks v. Zejdlik, 551 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1996) (citing City of Grand Forks v. Egley, 542 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1996)). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Perez v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2004Id. 2004Id. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
McDonald v. Pless
green
2 sentences1986For, while it may often exclude the only possible evidence of misconduct, a change in the rule ‘would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors.’ ‘The practice would be replete with dangerous consequences.’ ‘It would lead to the grossest fraud and abuse’ and ‘no verdict would be safe.’ [Citation omitted.]" McDonald v. Pless, supra, 238 U.S. at 268 , 35 S.Ct. at 784-785 , 59 L.Ed. at 1302 . 4 . 1986For, while it may often exclude the only possible evidence of misconduct, a change in the rule ‘would open the door to the most pernicious arts and tampering with jurors.’ ‘The practice would be replete with dangerous consequences.’ ‘It would lead to the grossest fraud and abuse’ and ‘no verdict would be safe.’ [Citation omitted.]" McDonald v. Pless, supra, 238 U.S. at 268 , 35 S.Ct. at 784-785 , 59 L.Ed. at 1302 . 4 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences1986The special regard afforded to loss of liberty is exhibited in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 5 . 1986The special regard afforded to loss of liberty is exhibited in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967). 5 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lovejoy v. Murray
green
1 sentence1899Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1 ; Hep burn v. Sewell, 9 Am. | 1 | 1899–1899 |
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.