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 1995–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Houn v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 | 3 | 2002–2025 |
Dworshak v. Moore
green
2 sentences2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Torstenson v. Moore
green
2 sentences2004Torstenson v. Moore, 1997 ND 159, ¶ 8 , 567 N.W.2d 622 . 2004Torstenson v. Moore, 1997 ND 159, ¶ 8 , 567 N.W.2d 622 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Johnson v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bryl v. Backes
green
1 sentence1995Bryl, 477 N.W.2d 809 ; Dodds v. N.D. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.