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 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. | ||
| 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. Steen
neutral
2 sentences2018State v. Steen , 2015 ND 66, ¶ 7 , 860 N.W.2d 470 . 2018State v. Steen , 2015 ND 66, ¶ 7 , 860 N.W.2d 470 . | 2 | 2016–2018 |
State v. Nikle
green
1 sentence2013“To establish obvious error, a defendant must show error occurred that 1) was plain, meaning it deviated from a legal rule under the current law, and 2) affected substantial rights, meaning the outcome of the proceeding was affected.” Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bertram
green
1 sentence2009Id. [¶ 14] A new preliminary hearing is not always required when an information is amended. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Krull
green
2 sentences2006State v. Krull, 2005 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 693 N.W.2d 631 ; N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). [¶ 6] North Dakota has not established rules indicating the circumstances under which a venireperson’s comments would be so prejudicial that a judge must dismiss the pool in its entirety. 2006State v. Krull, 2005 ND 63, ¶ 6 , 693 N.W.2d 631 ; N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). [¶ 6] North Dakota has not established rules indicating the circumstances under which a venireperson’s comments would be so prejudicial that a judge must dismiss the pool in its entirety. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strom-Sell v. COUNCIL FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS, INC.
green
1 sentence2000State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 16 , 606 N.W.2d 108 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Burke
green
1 sentence2000State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, ¶ 16 , 606 N.W.2d 108 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
City of Bismarck v. Towne
green
2 sentences2000Although Steen concedes he did not move for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, and therefore failed to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for review, see, e.g., City of Bismarck v. Towne, 1999 ND 49, ¶ 8 , 590 N.W.2d 893 , he argues the insufficiency of the evidence is obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b). [¶ 17] To establish obvious error, a defendant must show an error that is plain and affects substantial rights. 2000Although Steen concedes he did not move for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, and therefore failed to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for review, see, e.g., City of Bismarck v. Towne, 1999 ND 49, ¶ 8 , 590 N.W.2d 893 , he argues the insufficiency of the evidence is obvious error affecting substantial rights under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(b). [¶ 17] To establish obvious error, a defendant must show an error that is plain and affects substantial rights. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.