6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert E. Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schoolsgreen1 sentence1997See Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Sch., 100 F.3d 1281, 1283 (7th Cir. 1996) and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knollgreen1 sentence1994See generally Knoll, 369 S.E.2d at 562 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heglandgreen1 sentence1985In our recent decision in State v. Hegland, 355 N.W.2d 803, 805 (N.D.1984), we set forth the requirements for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and also discussed our standard of review in such cases: “A new trial may be granted under Rule 33, N.D.R.Crim.P., ‘if required in the interests of justice.’ We noted in State v. McLain, [ 312 N.W.2d 343 (N.D.1981) ], that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be granted only when all of the following requirements are met: (1) the evidence must have been discovered since the trial, (2) the failure | 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. Johnson
green
2 sentences2011Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.” City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15, ¶ 7 , 777 N.W.2d 904 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167, ¶ 6 , 772 N.W.2d 591 ). [¶ 8] The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress, finding Officer Poppe did not stop Thompson. 2011Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.” City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15, ¶ 7 , 777 N.W.2d 904 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167, ¶ 6 , 772 N.W.2d 591 ). [¶ 8] The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress, finding Officer Poppe did not stop Thompson. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
City of Bismarck v. Bullinger
neutral
2 sentences2011Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.” City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15, ¶ 7 , 777 N.W.2d 904 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167, ¶ 6 , 772 N.W.2d 591 ). [¶ 8] The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress, finding Officer Poppe did not stop Thompson. 2011Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.” City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15, ¶ 7 , 777 N.W.2d 904 (quoting State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167, ¶ 6 , 772 N.W.2d 591 ). [¶ 8] The district court denied Thompson’s motion to suppress, finding Officer Poppe did not stop Thompson. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Schweigert v. Provident Life Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1997Unlike the Schweigert and Schuhmacher claimants, Thompson’s claim alleged facts that, if proven, would have directly established a violation of the Human Rights Act, without the need for using any version of the McDonnellr-Douglas-Burdine, burden-shifting framework that we modified and adopted in Schweigert, 503 N.W.2d at 229 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Raywalt
green
1 sentence1996Because we presume that the trial court’s decision to deny the motion was correct, Thompson has the burden “to show affirmatively by the record that the ruling was incorrect.” Raywalt, 436 N.W.2d at 239 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. McLain
green
1 sentence1985In our recent decision in State v. Hegland, 355 N.W.2d 803, 805 (N.D.1984), we set forth the requirements for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence and also discussed our standard of review in such cases: “A new trial may be granted under Rule 33, N.D.R.Crim.P., ‘if required in the interests of justice.’ We noted in State v. McLain, [ 312 N.W.2d 343 (N.D.1981) ], that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence will be granted only when all of the following requirements are met: (1) the evidence must have been discovered since the trial, (2) the failure | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.