N.D. Cent. Code » Chapter t27c05
North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06 (2026)

Jurisdiction of district courts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The district courts of this state have the general jurisdiction conferred upon the courts by the constitution, and in the exercise of that jurisdiction the courts have power to issue all writs, process, and commissions provided therein or by law or which may be necessary for the due execution of the powers with which the courts are vested. The courts have:

1. Common-law jurisdiction and authority within their respective judicial districts for the redress of all wrongs committed against the laws of this state affecting persons or property.

2. Power to hear and determine all civil actions and proceedings.

3. All the powers, according to the usages of courts of law and equity, necessary to the full and complete jurisdiction of the causes and parties and the full and complete administration of justice, and to carrying into effect the courts' judgments, orders, and other determinations, subject to a re-examination by the supreme court as provided by law.

4. Jurisdiction of appeals from all final judgments of municipal judges and from the determinations of inferior officers, boards, or tribunals, in the cases and pursuant to the regulations as may be prescribed by law.

5. Disputed property line proceedings pursuant to section 11-20-14.1.

6. Power to hear and determine all actions and proceedings arising from the enforcement of county home rule charter ordinances.

7. Power to hear and determine all actions and proceedings arising from the enforcement of city ordinances in a city:

a. With a population of fewer than five thousand in which there is not a municipal court or municipal judge under chapter 40-18.1.

b. That has entered an agreement under section 40-18.1-23 or 40-18.1-25. \n 27-05-07. Purposes for which district courts always open - When and where issues of fact triable. Superseded by N.D.R.Civ.P., Rule 77.\n\n Page No. 3 27-05-08. Chambers - Residence.

1. The locations of the chambers of the district judges in each of the respective districts shall be as determined by rule of the supreme court.

2. Each district judge shall reside within the district where the judge's chambers are located, and, for the purposes of this section, the chief justice of the supreme court shall designate the respective chambers within the district to which each district judge is assigned. \n 27-05-08.1. Terms of district court to be fixed by supreme court. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-09. First judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-10. Second judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-11. Third judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-12. Fourth judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-13. Fifth judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-14. Sixth judicial district - General terms. Repealed by S.L. 1947, ch. 229, § 2. \n 27-05-15. Terms for naturalization. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-16. District judges may call special terms and may summon juries thereto. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-17. General provisions concerning terms. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-18. District judges prohibited from holding consecutive jury terms - Exception. Repealed by S.L. 1995, ch. 295, § 1. \n 27-05-19. Effect where first day of term falls on legal holiday. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-20. Acts of district judge are acts of court. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n 27-05-21. District judges to have statewide jurisdiction - Exception. Repealed by S.L. 1981, ch. 316, § 2. \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 753 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments, 2002 ND 65 (N.D. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments, 2002 ND 65 (N.D. 2002). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeals were timely under N.”
Kelly v. Kelly, 2002 ND 37 (N.D. 2002). · cites it 4× “" [¶ 11] The district court found a material change in circumstances, and found a change in custody was necessary to serve the best interests of the children.”
Coughlin Constr. Co. v. Nu-Tec Indus., Inc., 2008 ND 163 (N.D. 2008). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal of Nu-Tec and the Balzers is timely under N.”
State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 4× “He claimed he did not engage in any sexual activity with the complainant on May 22, 2003.”
State v. Mitzel, 2004 ND 157 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal was timely under N.”
Amsbaugh v. Amsbaugh, 2004 ND 11 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 4× “The district court further found each party will be responsible for his or her own attorney fees.”
State v. Mercier, 2016 ND 160 (N.D. 2016). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal was timely under N.”
State v. Matthews, 2003 ND 108 (N.D. 2003). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. This Court has jurisdiction under N.”
Dvorak v. Dvorak, 2005 ND 66 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 4× “The district court then awarded an “offsetting monetary award of $114,190.00” to Kathleen Dvorak. [¶ 8] Kathleen Dvorak appeals the district court judgment.”
Klein v. Larson, 2006 ND 236 (N.D. 2006). · cites it 4× “Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found it was in the best interests of the child to award custody to Klein, with ample visitation to Larson.”
Knutson v. Knutson, 2002 ND 29 (N.D. 2002). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. Jacqueline Knutson's appeal is timely under N.”
Frueh v. Frueh, 2009 ND 155 (N.D. 2009). · cites it 4× “VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. Frueh's appeal is timely under N.”
Show all 753 citing cases →
— N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06(1) — 34 cases
State v. Glaesman, 545 N.W.2d 178 (N.D. 1996).
State v. Harmon, 1997 ND 233 (N.D. 1998).
State v. Olson, 1998 ND 41 (N.D. 1998).
State v. McDonell, 550 N.W.2d 62 (N.D. 1996).
State v. Blunt, 2008 ND 135 (N.D. 2008).
— N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06(2) — 14 cases
State v. Klose, 2003 ND 39 (N.D. 2003).
Wetch v. Wetch, 539 N.W.2d 309 (N.D. 1995).
McAdams v. McAdams, 530 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 1995).
Throndset v. Hawkenson, 532 N.W.2d 394 (N.D. 1995).
Matter of Est. of Murphy, 554 N.W.2d 432 (N.D. 1996).
— N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06(3) — 9 cases
Matrix Props. Corp. v. TAG INVESTMENTS, 2002 ND 86 (N.D. 2002).
Erickson v. Brown, 2012 ND 43 (N.D. 2012).
Braaten v. Deere & Co., Inc., 1997 ND 202 (N.D. 1997).
Roth v. Hoffer, 2006 ND 119 (N.D. 2006).
Haroldson v. Haroldson, 813 N.W.2d 539 (N.D. 2012).
— N.D. Cent. Code § 27-05-06(4) — 10 cases
Schmidt v. City of Minot, 2016 ND 175 (N.D. 2016).
City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44 (N.D. 2007).
Harris v. Harris, 2010 ND 45 (N.D. 2010).
Matter of Est. of Knudsen, 342 N.W.2d 387 (N.D. 1984).
Wieland v. City of Fargo, 2018 ND 26 (N.D. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.