Repository: freelawproject/juriscraper (language: python)

Issue:
`nd` source url has changed
Sentry Issue: [COURTLISTENER-75F](https://freelawproject.sentry.io/issues/5293431150/?referrer=github_integration)

```
HTTPError: 404 Client Error: Not Found for url: https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/recent-opinions?pageSize=100
(1 additional frame(s) were not displayed)
...
  File "cl/scrapers/management/commands/cl_scrape_opinions.py", line 387, in handle
    self.parse_and_scrape_site(mod, options)
  File "cl/scrapers/management/commands/cl_scrape_opinions.py", line 350, in parse_and_scrape_site
    site = mod.Site().parse()
```
Filed by @grossir



Discussion / hints:

Fix patch:
diff --git a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/nd.py b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/nd.py
index 563a7c44f..9ae02fdcf 100644
--- a/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/nd.py
+++ b/juriscraper/opinions/united_states/state/nd.py
@@ -1,93 +1,103 @@
 # Author: Phil Ardery
 # Contact: https://www.ndcourts.gov/contact-us
 # Date created: 2019-02-28
+# Updated: 2024-05-08, grossir: to OpinionSiteLinear and new URL
+import re
+from typing import Tuple
+from urllib.parse import urljoin
 
-from juriscraper.lib.exceptions import InsanityException
-from juriscraper.lib.string_utils import convert_date_string
-from juriscraper.OpinionSite import OpinionSite
+from juriscraper.OpinionSiteLinear import OpinionSiteLinear
 
 
-class Site(OpinionSite):
+class Site(OpinionSiteLinear):
+    base_url = "https://www.ndcourts.gov/"
+    ordered_fields = [
+        "name",
+        "docket",
+        "date",
+        "nature_of_suit",
+        "judge",
+    ]
+
     def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
         self.court_id = self.__module__
-        self.url = "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/recent-opinions?pageSize=100"
-        self.cases = []
+        self.url = "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions?topic=&author=&searchQuery=&trialJudge=&pageSize=100&sortOrder=1"
+        self.status = "Published"
 
-    def _process_html(self):
-        for row in self.html.xpath('//table//div[@class="row"]'):
-            case = self.case_fields_extract(row)
-            self.case_fields_validate(case)
-            case = self.case_fields_sanitize(case)
-            self.cases.append(case)
+    def _process_html(self) -> None:
+        """Most values are inside a <p>: whitespace and
+        field names need to be cleaned
 
-    def case_fields_extract(self, row):
-        text_lines = row.xpath("./div/p[1]/text()")
-        text_lines = [
-            l.strip() for l in text_lines if l.strip()
-        ]  # Remove empty lines
-        line_count = len(text_lines)
-        return {
-            "citation": text_lines[0],
-            "docket": text_lines[1],
-            "date": text_lines[2],
-            "name": row.xpath(".//a")[0].text_content().strip(),
-            "nature": text_lines[3],
-            "judge": text_lines[4],
-            "summary": " ".join(text_lines[5:line_count])
-            if line_count > 5
-            else "",
-            "url": row.xpath(".//button/@onclick")[0].split("'")[1],
-        }
-
-    def case_fields_validate(self, case):
-        if "ND" not in case["citation"]:
-            raise InsanityException(f"Invalid citation: {case['citation']}")
-        if not case["docket"].startswith("Docket No.:"):
-            raise InsanityException(
-                f"Invalid docket raw string: {case['docket']}"
-            )
-        if not case["date"].startswith("Filing Date:"):
-            raise InsanityException(
-                f"Invalid date string raw string: {case['date']}"
-            )
-        if not case["nature"].startswith("Case Type:"):
-            raise InsanityException(
-                f"Invalid type raw string: {case['nature']}"
+        Citation used to be available, now must be got from inside
+        the document's text
+        """
+        for row in self.html.xpath('//table//div[@class="row"]'):
+            raw_values = list(map(str.strip, row.xpath("./div/p[1]/text()")))
+            values = []
+
+            for idx, txt in enumerate(raw_values[:5]):
+                if idx == 0:
+                    txt, extra_docket = self.clean_name(txt)
+                else:
+                    txt = txt.split(":", 1)[1].strip()
+                values.append(txt)
+
+            summary = (
+                " ".join(raw_values[5:]).strip() if len(raw_values) > 5 else ""
             )
-        if not case["judge"].startswith("Author:"):
-            raise InsanityException(
-                f"Invalid author raw string: {case['judge']}"
+            url = urljoin(
+                self.base_url,
+                row.xpath(".//button[@onclick]/@onclick")[0].split("'")[1],
             )
+            case = dict(zip(self.ordered_fields, values[:5]))
+            case["summary"] = summary
+            case["url"] = url
 
-    def case_fields_sanitize(self, case):
-        for field in ["date", "docket", "judge", "nature"]:
-            case[field] = case[field].split(":", 1)[1].strip()
-        return case
-
-    def _get_download_urls(self):
-        return [case["url"] for case in self.cases]
+            # There is a per_curiam field on the CL Opinion model,
+            # but we don't process it if sent by the scraper
+            if "Per Curiam" in case["judge"]:
+                case["judge"] = ""
 
-    def _get_case_names(self):
-        return [case["name"] for case in self.cases]
-
-    def _get_case_dates(self):
-        return [convert_date_string(case["date"]) for case in self.cases]
-
-    def _get_docket_numbers(self):
-        return [case["docket"] for case in self.cases]
+            self.cases.append(case)
 
     def _get_nature_of_suit(self):
-        return [case["nature"] for case in self.cases]
-
-    def _get_citations(self):
-        return [case["citation"] for case in self.cases]
-
-    def _get_judges(self):
-        return [case["judge"] for case in self.cases]
-
-    def _get_precedential_statuses(self):
-        return ["Published"] * len(self.cases)
-
-    def _get_summaries(self):
-        return [case["summary"] for case in self.cases]
+        return [case["nature_of_suit"] for case in self.cases]
+
+    def clean_name(self, name: str) -> Tuple[str, str]:
+        """Cleans case name
+
+        Some case names list the consolidated docket or a
+        (CONFIDENTIAL) parentheses
+
+        :param name: raw case name
+        :return: cleaned name and extra_docket numbers
+        """
+        other_dockets = ""
+        if "(consolidated w/" in name:
+            other_dockets = ",".join(re.findall(r"\d{8}", name))
+            name = name.split("(consolidated w/")[0]
+        if "(CONFIDENTIAL" in name:
+            name = name.split("(CONFIDENTIAL")[0]
+
+        return name.strip(), other_dockets
+
+    def extract_from_text(self, scraped_text: str) -> dict:
+        """Extract Citation from text
+
+        :param scraped_text: Text of scraped content
+        :return: date filed
+        """
+        regex = r"(?P<vol>20\d{2})\sND\s(?P<page>\d+)"
+        match = re.search(regex, scraped_text[:1000])
+
+        if match:
+            return {
+                "Citation": {
+                    "volume": match.group("vol"),
+                    "reporter": "ND",
+                    "page": match.group("page"),
+                    "type": 8,  # NEUTRAL in courtlistener Citation model
+                },
+            }
+        return {}


Test patch:
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.compare.json b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.compare.json
index 79a0ed209..09eda1388 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.compare.json
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.compare.json
@@ -1,1402 +1,1302 @@
 [
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-26",
-    "case_names": "Robert Banderet,et al. v. Sargent Count Water Resource District",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND57",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Zander v. Morsette",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161770",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180253",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 57",
-    "summaries": "In general, when an appeal from a local governing body's decision is authorized by law, equitable relief against the enforcement of the decision will not be allowed. An appeal of a local governing body's decision must be taken within 30 days of the decision.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230103",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Other",
+    "summaries": "The district court controls the scope and substance of opening and closing arguments, and a district court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. A party is not prejudiced by a counsel's improper arguments when the district court instructs the jury not to consider counsel's comments as evidence. A court may grant a new trial on grounds the jury awarded excessive damages appearing to have been awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice. To justify the granting of a new trial, passion and prejudice usually connote anger, resentment, hate, and disregard of the rights of others. When a jury awards excessive damages, under appropriate circumstances, the district court and this Court on appeal, may order a reduction of the verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess damages.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Zander"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-25",
-    "case_names": "Matter of Kulink",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND55",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Williams",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161779",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180083",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 55",
-    "summaries": "A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Matter of Kulink"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230300",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "A criminal judgment for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-25",
-    "case_names": "Bindas v. Bindas",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND56",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Pederson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161760",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180232",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 56",
-    "summaries": "Section 14-05-24.1(3), N.D.C.C., which authorizes the district court to terminate spousal support when the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another individual in a relationship analogous to a marriage for more than one year, does not apply when the parties have a contrary written agreement.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Bindas"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230318",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight : To succeed in a challenge under Brady, the defendant must demonstrate the evidence was favorable to the defendant or plainly exculpatory. To preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal, the defendant must move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 unless the district court committed obvious error.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Pederson"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Varty v. Varty",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND49",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Heintz",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161765",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180279",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 49",
-    "summaries": "Agreements between divorcing parties are encouraged, and stipulated spousal support awards should be changed only with great reluctance. The party seeking modification of spousal support must prove a material change in the financial circumstances of the parties warranting a change in support. The district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines in determining an award of spousal support.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Varty"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230385",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Assault",
+    "summaries": "Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Heintz"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Vetter",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND43",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Heintz",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161765",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180142",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230384",
     "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 43",
-    "summaries": "The statutory implied consent advisory must be read after a person is placed under arrest and before a chemical test may be administered to determine alcohol concentration. The totality of the circumstances must be considered to determine whether a person voluntarily consented to submit to a blood test to determine blood-alcohol concentration. An accurate reading of the implied consent advisory does not constitute per se coercion.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Vetter"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband",
+    "summaries": "Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Heintz"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Powley",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND51",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Heintz",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161765",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180226",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "SEXUAL OFFENSE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 51",
-    "summaries": "A pre-trial order in limine excluding evidence is a preliminary order that does not dispense with the need for the proponent to make an offer of proof at trial so the district court can consider the proffered evidence in the context of other evidence presented during trial. An appeal by the State of an order in limine excluding evidence is not statutorily authorized. The authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary and we decide whether to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. An appeal by the State of an order denying a motion to amend an information is not statutorily authorized.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Powley"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230383",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband",
+    "summaries": "Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Heintz"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Hansford",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND52",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Heintz",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161765",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180179",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "SEXUAL OFFENSE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 52",
-    "summaries": "Whether a suspect is in custody is a mixed question of fact and law which is fully reviewable on appeal. A reasonable person would not believe he was in custody when he traveled unrestrained to the police station, was not placed under arrest or otherwise restrained, was told he was free to leave at any time, sat closest to the door during the interview, was interviewed in a room with only one law enforcement agent present, did not show any apprehension about being in the agent's company, and told the agent he understood he was free to leave at any time. It is the State's burden to prove the voluntariness of a defendant's confession and to produce evidence on relevant factors. Even if a suspect is not in custody and Miranda warnings are given gratuitously, they are not rendered wholly irrelevant in determining whether incriminating statements were given voluntarily. Parties raising a constitutional claim must provide persuasive authority and a reasoned analysis to support the claim.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Hansford"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230382",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Heintz"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Goldsack",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND36",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "State v. Hartson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161750",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180265",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DRUGS/CONTRABAND",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 36",
-    "summaries": "Judgment revoking probation and sentencing defendant to six years' imprisonment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Goldsack"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230243",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Homicide",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: Changing the culpability level of the crime charged is not a modification of a statute. Under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-02-02(4), a lesser degree of culpability is satisfied if the proven degree of culpability is higher. The district court's failure to submit statutory definition of that term was not obvious error affecting defendant's substantial rights. It is not clearly established law in North Dakota that, where the State alleges multiple predicate felonies in a felony murder prosecution under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-16-01(1)(c), the district court must include an instruction that the jury must unanimously agree on the predicate felony to convict the defendant of murder. Not including separate verdict forms for each predicate felony was not obvious error. There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of murder.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Hartson"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Dowdy",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND50",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161775",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180204",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230195",
     "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 50",
-    "summaries": "An arresting officer's inclusion of additional information in the implied consent advisory must not materially mislead or coerce a defendant. Whether a defendant voluntarily consents to chemical testing must be determined by the totality of the circumstances.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Dowdy"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Real Property",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: Wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is disapproved. District courts retain authority to revisit interlocutory orders until entry of final judgment. Under the doctrine of merger, the provisions of an executory contract merge into an instrument conveying real property. Absent fraud or mistake, the conveying instrument alone governs determination of the rights of the parties to the transaction. Recordation of a granting instrument is not necessary to effect a conveyance. Nor is it necessary for a plaintiff to present the original conveying instrument to prevail in quiet title action. In a quiet title action ownership may be established through evidence that a conveying instrument was delivered but subsequently lost. The equitable defense of laches may be available when a party delays enforcing his rights and a change in conditions during the delay results in prejudice to an adverse party. To have standing to litigate an issue a party must have suffered some injury from the putatively illegal action and the party must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights and interests of third parties. Parties may contract to a fee recovery standard that is either looser or stricter than statutory standards.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "SPOTTIE"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Cody",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND38",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Musland v. Musland",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161754",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180229",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 38",
-    "summaries": "Jury verdict finding defendant guilty of willfully giving false information to a law enforcement officer under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-11-03(1) and preventing arrest under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-08-02(1) is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Cody"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230345",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property",
+    "summaries": "A marital distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, and while assessing a property division, a district court may consider the importance of preserving the viability of a business operation like a family farm. Liquidation of an ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a last resort. A district court property division granting one party a net estate of $3,224,357 while assigning them virtually no debt, and the other a net estate of $4,961,915 included all of the debt, almost no liquidity, and no retirement funds, was not clearly erroneous. A district court does not need to consider potential tax implications of a property division when the record failed to support a conclusion that the sale of the property was imminent, failed to indicate the tax liability, or quantified a specific liability to the court. A party is not entitled to an accrual of rent for the use of marital property during the pendency of divorce proceedings absent agreement or seeking district court intervention during the interim. Language in a right to first refusal that does not clarify if the right is triggered by a response to \"any\" offer made to purchase property or if it is triggered by a party's \"acceptance\" of an offer is ambiguous.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Musland"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Christie",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND40",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Morales v. Weatherford U.S.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161795",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180286",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "SEXUAL OFFENSE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 40",
-    "summaries": "Conviction of class AA felony gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Christie"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230110",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury",
+    "summaries": "Only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the parties' rights to an action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. \u00a7 28-27-02 are appealable. Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies to final judgments or orders. A final judgment is a decree, order, or judgment \"from which an appeal lies.\" N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a). Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., recognizes a district court may direct entry of a final judgment against only some of the parties to a litigation, but until final judgment is entered all orders are subject to revision.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Morales"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Brakke",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND34",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Interest of Skorick",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161771",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180275",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 34",
-    "summaries": "A criminal judgment for driving with a suspended license is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Brakke"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230330",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual",
+    "summaries": "A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of Skorick"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "State v. Abuhamda",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND44",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Harris v. Oasis Petroleum",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161790",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180127",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230279",
     "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DRUGS/CONTRABAND",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 44",
-    "summaries": "The right to appeal in this state is purely statutory, and without statutory authorization to hear an appeal this Court lacks jurisdiction. An order approving pretrial diversion is not appealable under statutory authority contained in N.D.C.C. 29-28-06. Supervisory writs may be issued in extraordinary cases to prevent injustice when no adequate alternative remedies exist. While it is true N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) does not require ritualistic compliance to enter a conditional guilty plea, courts must substantially comply with the rule's procedural requirements to ensure defendants enter the plea voluntarily and intelligently.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Abuhamda"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury",
+    "summaries": "A motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The question of who is a prevailing party under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 28-26-06 is a question of law, subject to de novo review. A prevailing party in a tort action must at least prevail on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. There may not be a single prevailing party when opposing parties each prevail on some issues. Under North Dakota's comparative fault statute, N.D.C.C. \u00a7 32-03.2-02, in the case of a contributorily negligent plaintiff, any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. However, N.D.C.C. \u00a7 32-03.2-02 does not provide for any diminution in the costs and disbursements to be allowed to a recovering plaintiff. A district court has the discretion to award a prevailing party costs and disbursements under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 28-26-06, without reduction by the party's percentage of fault. The law does not require a court to reduce costs awarded to the prevailing party based on its percentage of fault.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Harris"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Smith v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND33",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Glaum v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161784",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180276",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 33",
-    "summaries": "A district court order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230236",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "Rule 58 of the North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary action or proceeding, including any appeal from an administrative agency, any review of a referee order by the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court. Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents filed in criminal actions. An appeal from a vexatious litigant pre-filing order must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the order. When there is no service of notice of entry of the order or evidence of actual knowledge of entry, the time for filing a notice of appeal does not begin to run. A presiding judge may determine a person is a vexatious litigant based on the finding that in the immediately preceding seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as a self-represented party at least three litigations that have been finally determined adversely to that person. If a response to the proposed pre-filing order is filed, the presiding judge may, in the judge's discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order. An appellant is precluded from challenging an order that was not appealed from in the notice of appeal and raising an issue for the first time on appeal.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Glaum"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Smith v. Erickson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND48",
+    "case_dates": "2024-05-02",
+    "case_names": "Field v. Field",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/161751",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180124",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 48",
-    "summaries": "The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions and will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion occurs. The lack of a trial transcript does not allow for meaningful and intelligent review of issues on appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff a vexatious litigant when evidence supported finding litigant persistently and without reasonable grounds filed motions and requests not warranted under existing law.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Erickson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230405",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Child Support",
+    "summaries": "Under Rule 30(a), N.D.R.App.P., a party's references to evidence in any document on appeal must cite to items in the record. This Court does not consider documents that are not in the certified record. After an initial custody decision has been made, parenting time modifications are governed by N.D.C.C. \u00a7 14-05-22(2) and by standards set forth in caselaw. A parenting plan must include a provision on decision making responsibility under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 14-09-30(2)(a), and that responsibility must be allocated in the best interests of the child, N.D.C.C. \u00a7 14-09-31(2). A district court's decision on parenting time and decision making responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Field"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Schindler v. Wageman",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND41",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-26",
+    "case_names": "Estate of Kish",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/157011",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180024",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 41",
-    "summaries": "Party was required to provide clear and convincing evidence that warranty deeds did not correctly state the parties' intent. Consent to try an issue outside the pleadings cannot be implied from evidence which is relevant to the pleadings but which also bears on an unpled issue.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Schindler"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230275",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts",
+    "summaries": "A two-step analysis is required to determine whether an order is appealable. First, for this Court to have appellate jurisdiction, the order being appealed must meet statutory criteria for appealability. Second, for this Court to consider the appeal at this time, the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must have been satisfied. Decisions have stated that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction when an appellant fails to obtain N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification when required, but dismissal under Rule 54(b) is not for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The parties did not request Rule 54(b) certification. The case is remanded under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) so that the district court may determine in the first instance whether a Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Estate of Kish"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Lenertz v. City of Minot N.D.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND53",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-23",
+    "case_names": "Vacancy in Judgeship No. 8, ECJD",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156761",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180153",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 53",
-    "summaries": "To establish an inverse condemnation claim, a property owner must prove a public entity took or damaged the owner's property for a public use and the public use was the proximate cause of the taking or damages. Whether private property was taken for public use is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal. The district court has broad discretion determining whether to allow expert witness testimony, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it abused its discretion. The district court's decision to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law is based on whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion. Whether the evidence is sufficient to create a question of fact for the jury is a question of law.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Lenertz"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240055",
+    "judges": "Not Available",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule",
+    "summaries": "Vacancy retained at Fargo",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Kuntz v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND46",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "State v. Fuglesten",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156540",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180135",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230299",
     "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 46",
-    "summaries": "A district court's decision granting judgment on the pleadings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(c) is reviewed de novo. A public entity violates the open records law when a person's right to review or receive a copy of a record that is not exempt or confidential is denied or unreasonably delayed or when an excessive fee is charged. A civil action for a violation of the open records law may be filed after an unreasonably delayed disclosure if a person alleges prejudice or harm caused by the delay. An affidavit of service by mail filed with the court establishes service of the referenced documents. Service of an unsigned copy of the affidavit does not vitiate the evidence of service presented to the court by filing the signed affidavit.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Kuntz"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC",
+    "summaries": "A criminal judgment entered after a conditional plea is reversed and remanded to allow for withdrawal of the guilty plea because law enforcement illegally entered the home without exigent circumstances. If a misdemeanant is fleeing law enforcement, then exigent circumstances are required to permit law enforcement to enter the misdemeanant's home.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Fuglesten"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Interest of H.B.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND35",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Schmidt v. Hess Corp.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156541",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180439",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 35",
-    "summaries": "A juvenile court order terminating parental rights to H.B., V.B, and A.B. is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of H.B."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230272",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: To prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty. The employer of an independent contractor who retains control of part of the work owes a duty of care to the independ ent contractor' s employees to exercise the retained control with reasonable care. A property owner who hires an independent contractor may be held liable to the independent contractor and its employees for injuries resulting from hazards at the workplace when the property owner retains control over the work.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Schmidt"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Heldstab v. Heldstab",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND39",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Rennie v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156532",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180299",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 39",
-    "summaries": "A district court's divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Heldstab"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230303",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Rennie"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Heidt v. Heidt",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND45",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Garaas v. Continental Resources",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156520",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180250",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230306",
     "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 45",
-    "summaries": "District court erred in finding mother had not made a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Heidt"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Contracts",
+    "summaries": "We will not consider an appeal in a multi-claim lawsuit where the district court order disposes of fewer than all the claims against all the parties unless the court has determined that a certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is appropriate.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Garaas"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Hagen v. Horst",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND37",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Cichos v. Dakota Eye Institute, P.C.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156565",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180344",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 37",
-    "summaries": "A district court's award of residential responsibility and child support, the implementation of supervised parenting time, and decision to issue an emergency ex parte custody order are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a) (2), (3) and(4).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Hagen"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230212",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Malpractice",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., preserves our long-standing policy against piecemeal appeals. When this Court considers the merits in a case involving a N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification, it does so because the resolution of the issue on appeal will always need to be resolved and is separate from the issue left to be adjudicated. To establish a prima facie case of professional negligence, a plaintiff must produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, violation of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of. To warrant a finding that a person's conduct is the proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be the natural and probable result of the conduct and must have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by that person as a probable result of the conduct. Mere speculation is not enough.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Cichos"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Gonzalez v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND47",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-19",
+    "case_names": "Berdahl v. Berdahl",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156524",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180188",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 47",
-    "summaries": "When an applicant for post-conviction relief alleges newly discovered evidence, a district court errs in sua sponte summarily denying the application, after the State has responded to the application, without providing the applicant notice and the opportunity to submit an answer with supporting materials to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. A district court's error in sua sponte summarily denying an application for post-conviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence after response by the State does not prejudice the applicant if the district court later considers and correctly rules on the merits in the applicant's subsequent motion for reconsideration.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Gonzalez"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230278",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: When this Court has made a legal pronouncement and remanded a case for further proceedings, the parties may not relitigate the issue and the district court is required to follow the terms of our decision. The district court has some discretion on the procedures used on remand. However, that discretion is not without bounds and must be exercised within the scope of our decision. Adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias of a district court judge.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Berdahl"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Estate of Krueger",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND42",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-18",
+    "case_names": "Interest of H.J.J.N.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/156414",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180237",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 42",
-    "summaries": "For purposes of Medicaid recovery from a surviving spouse's estate, the Department's recovery from a deceased recipient's joint tenancy property is limited to the deceased recipient's fractional interest in the property.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Estate of Krueger"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240060",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "Case Highlight: Litigants in civil nonjury cases have a right to have their attorneys make a final argument. A court errs by entering judgment prior to the closing of the briefing period. In parental-termination cases, the court has discretion, which can be exercised only after considering the evidence and arguments.",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of H.J.J.N."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-02-21",
-    "case_names": "Dick v. Erman",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND54",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/54768",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180236",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230283",
     "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 54",
-    "summaries": "A district court's award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. Absent a reason for denying it, some form of extended visitation with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded. A district court's ruling on decision-making responsibility is a finding of fact, reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Dick"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-31",
-    "case_names": "Tollefson v. Anderson & Fercho, PLLP",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND32",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Urrabazo v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/82575",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180310",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 32",
-    "summaries": "Appellant's appeal of the district court's order granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), (7). This Court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney fees, if it determines an appeal is frivolous.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Tollefson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230317",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Urrabazo"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-25",
-    "case_names": "Wald v. Benedictine Living Communities, Inc.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND31",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Urrabazo v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/76272",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180048",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 31",
-    "summaries": "A post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law is a renewal of the pre-verdict motion and can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion. A jury verdict may not be based upon speculation of conjecture.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Wald"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230316",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Urrabazo"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-22",
-    "case_names": "State v. Bearrunner",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND29",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "State v. Thornton",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/134286",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180258",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 29",
-    "summaries": "Whether a fence is so enclosed as manifestly to exclude intruders is a finding of fact. Appellant's conduct did not rise to the level of \"tumultuous and violent\" as required under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-25-01.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Bearrunner"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240017",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Thornton"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-22",
-    "case_names": "Friesner v. Friesner",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND30",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "State v. Nelson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/124819",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180094",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 30",
-    "summaries": "A district court's choice for primary residential responsibility between two fit parents is a difficult one, and the Supreme Court will not retry the case or substitute its judgment for that of the district court when its decision is supported by the evidence. Permanent spousal support may be appropriate when there is a substantial income disparity between the spouses that cannot be remedied by property division or rehabilitative spousal support.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Friesner"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230346",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Western Energy Corporation v. Stauffer",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND26",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "State v. Henke",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/53827",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180283",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OIL, GAS AND MINERALS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 26",
-    "summaries": "District court judgment finding reformation of 1959 warranty deed barred by the ten-year statute of limitation under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 28-01-15(2) is affirmed.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Stauffer"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230302",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Henke"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Swanson v. Swanson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND25",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "State v. Freeman",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/128777",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180158",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 25",
-    "summaries": "District court division of marital property was not clearly erroneous. While long-term marriages generally support an equal distribution of the marital property, a court does not err by considering how the property was acquired and acting to preserve the viability of a business operation like a family farm by awarding a majority of the marital property, and its corresponding debt, to one party.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Swanson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230207",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Homicide",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Freeman"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Strom",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND9",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "State v. Alameen",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/110400",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180167",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 9",
-    "summaries": "When ordering restitution for a victim of a criminal act, district courts must not consider the defendant's ability to pay under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 12.1-32-08(1). North Dakota Constitution article I, \u00a7 25(1)(n) requires \"full\" restitution be awarded to the victim for \"all losses\" sustained. This amendment to the constitution implicitly repealed the statutory requirement to consider ability to pay.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Strom"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230320",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Alameen"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Simundson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND6",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Kemmet v. Kemmet",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/115148",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180223",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 6",
-    "summaries": "Summary affirmance of jury conviction for actual physical control under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 39-08-01.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Simundson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230194",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Child Support",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Kemmet"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Pittenger",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND22",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Interest of Y.R.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/125441",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170279",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "SEXUAL OFFENSE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 22",
-    "summaries": "Closing a trial to the public without proper analysis is a structural error requiring automatic reversal.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Pittenger"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240063",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of Y.R."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. McGath",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND7",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Interest of S.S.C.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/125884",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180186",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 7",
-    "summaries": "An appeal from a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under Koenig v. Schuh, 2016 ND 252, 888 N.W.2d 385, and N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "McGath"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240053",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of S.S.C."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Lyon",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND21",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Interest of S.B.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/149299",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180130",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "HOMICIDE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 21",
-    "summaries": "A sentence in excess of a statutory provision or in some other way contrary to an applicable statute is an illegal sentence.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Lyon"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240043",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of S.B."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Lott",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND18",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Interest of J.D.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/8493",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180154",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 18",
-    "summaries": "Criminal judgment of preventing arrest is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). N.D.R.Crim.P. 32., mandates a defendant be given an opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing. An individual who has been denied the right of allocution has generally met the burden of showing their substantial rights were affected.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Lott"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240059",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of J.D."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Foster",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND28",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Hoever v. Wilder",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/3267",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180098",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 28",
-    "summaries": "A witness may testify from personal knowledge about the witness's own actions and observations even when they relate to acts technical in nature. If evidence is admitted in error, this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant's rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Foster"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230295",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Hoever"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "State v. Christensen",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND11",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/131183",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180156",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 11",
-    "summaries": "Appellate review of a criminal sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the sentencing limits prescribed by statute, or substantially relied upon an impermissible factor. The presumptive probation statute requires a sentence of probation unless an exception applies.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Christensen"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230349",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Dahms"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Seccombe v. Rohde",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND13",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Cote v. Cote",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/109451",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180069",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 13",
-    "summaries": "A county court acquired jurisdiction over property when executor of estate filed a petition to sell the property and the petition substantially complied with statutory requirements. When the sale of property by an executor or administrator of an estate is required to be confirmed by the court under statute, the order confirming the sale cures all nonjurisdictional errors and irregularities occurring after the court obtains jurisdiction.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Seccombe"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230274",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Child Support",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Cote"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Schwab v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND4",
+    "case_dates": "2024-04-04",
+    "case_names": "Adoption of T.J.R. and B.L.R.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/114510",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180230",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 4",
-    "summaries": "An appeal from a district court's order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Schwab"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240056",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "S.E.L. v. J.A.P.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND16",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-18",
+    "case_names": "State v. Glaum",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/118064",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180075",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230190",
     "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "PATERNITY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 16",
-    "summaries": "Section 14-20-44(2), N.D.C.C., provides a statute of limitations barring proceedings to challenge an acknowledged father's paternity and to adjudicate paternity brought more than two years after the effective date of the paternity acknowledgment.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "S.E.L."
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Glaum"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Ourada v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND10",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-18",
+    "case_names": "State v. Driver",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/85620",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180087",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 10",
-    "summaries": "In a post-conviction relief proceeding, an applicant is entitled to notice that his application may be summarily dismissed.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Ourada"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230259",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Driver"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Lunde v. Paulson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND5",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-18",
+    "case_names": "Petro-Hunt v. Tank",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/74560",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180248",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "PERSONAL INJURY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 5",
-    "summaries": "Summarily affirm default judgment based on a lack of errors appearing on the face of the judgment roll.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Lunde"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230015",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Petro-Hunt"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Kieson v. Kieson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND15",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-18",
+    "case_names": "Happel v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/125750",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180157",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 15",
-    "summaries": "A marital property distribution in a divorce case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Kieson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230338",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Happel"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Interest of P.T.D.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND3",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-18",
+    "case_names": "Adoption of R.E.M.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/48552",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180192",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "JUVENILE LAW",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 3",
-    "summaries": "An appeal from a juvenile court order finding five children to be deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of P.T.D."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230321",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Adoption of R.E.M."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Interest of Jane Doe",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND23",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Weber v. NDDOT",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/110774",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180409",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230354",
     "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MENTAL HEALTH",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 23",
-    "summaries": "A district court's finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. In determining whether an individual is a person requiring treatment a district court must consider whether the individual is mentally ill, and whether there is a reasonable expectation that, if the individual is not hospitalized, there exists a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Weber"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Interest of E.S.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND12",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, SCJD",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/300",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180426",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MENTAL HEALTH",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 12",
-    "summaries": "A district court's finding respondent is mentally ill and requires treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. To show a respondent is a person requiring treatment, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill and there is a reasonable risk that, if the person is not treated, he poses a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of E.S."
+    "docket_numbers": "20240006",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Interest of D.M.W.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND8",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "State v. Wiese",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/154128",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180413",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 8",
-    "summaries": "An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of D.M.W."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230220",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Wiese"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Hogen v. Hogen",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND17",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "State v. Henderson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/74850",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180143",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230253",
     "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 17",
-    "summaries": "A transferor cannot convey an interest greater than the transferor has in the property, and a transferor who does not hold title to property cannot pass or transfer title to that property.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Hogen"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Helbling v. Helbling",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND27",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/104611",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180095",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 27",
-    "summaries": "When a divorce settlement agreement is incorporated and merged into a judgment, only the final judgment is interpreted and enforced, not the underlying contract between the parties.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Helbling"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230280",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Certified Question - Civil - Civil",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Papenhausen"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Grina v. Job Service",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND24",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Meuchel v. Red Trail Energy",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/54441",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180284",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "JOB SERVICE",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 24",
-    "summaries": "A Job Service decision is affirmed when a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the agency's factual conclusions were proved by the weight of evidence.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Grina"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230127",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Other",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Meuchel"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Desert Partners IV, L.P. v. Benson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND19",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Interest of R.K.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/158",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180112",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OIL, GAS AND MINERALS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 19",
-    "summaries": "A district court's decision on whether to grant a motion for a continuance will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Whether or not a party was a good-faith purchaser without notice of a competing interest is a mixed question of fact and law. A good-faith purchaser is one who acquires rights without actual or constructive notice of another's rights.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Benson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240062",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Mental Health",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of R.K."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "DeLong v. Shields",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND2",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Interest of J.C.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/125519",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180198",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 2",
-    "summaries": "A district court's award of unsupervised parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "DeLong"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230377",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of J.C."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Cody v. Cody",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND14",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Interest of A.P.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/52005",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180120",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 14",
-    "summaries": "The district court has broad discretion in deciding evidentiary matters, including whether to admit telephonic testimony. Interlocutory orders generally are not appealable and may be revised or reconsidered any time before the final order or judgment is entered. Claims for ineffective assistance of counsel have not been extended to civil actions for divorce.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Cody"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230404",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of A.P."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-15",
-    "case_names": "Avila v. Weaver",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND20",
+    "case_dates": "2024-03-07",
+    "case_names": "Archambault v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/84856",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180111",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CONTRACTS",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 20",
-    "summaries": "If a post-trial motion does not require the amendment of the judgment, N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3) applies and the time for appeal begins upon service of the notice of the order disposing of the motion. Where the order disposing of the motion necessitates the entry of an amended judgment, N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) applies and the time for appeal begins upon the service of the notice of the entry of the amended judgment. An initial judgment did not foreclose on an award of attorney fees under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(3). This Court does not consider questions that were not presented to the district court and that are raised for the first time on appeal.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Avila"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230336",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Archambault"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2019-01-09",
-    "case_names": "Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND1",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-22",
+    "case_names": "State v. Rinde",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/111040",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20160436",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 1",
-    "summaries": "Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230285",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Rinde"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-11",
-    "case_names": "Berg v. North Dakota State Board of Registration",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND274",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-22",
+    "case_names": "State v. Fischer",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/119822",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170413",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 274",
-    "summaries": "In reviewing an administrative agency's findings of fact, the Supreme Court does not make independent findings of fact or substitute its judgment for that of the agency. In an administrative proceeding, the administrative agency resolves conflicts of evidence and weighs the credibility of witnesses.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Berg"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230239",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Theft",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Fischer"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Tornabeni v. Wold",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND253",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-22",
+    "case_names": "NDIC v. Gould",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/46686",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180164",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 253",
-    "summaries": "The existence and terms of an oral contract are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule. A district court's determination of whether the facts support a finding of unjust enrichment is fully reviewable on appeal. An award of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Issues not raised in the district court are waived.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Tornabeni"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230188",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Foreclosure",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "NDIC"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Stein v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND264",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-22",
+    "case_names": "Garaas v. Petro-Hunt",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/152710",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180128",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 264",
-    "summaries": "A district court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ineffective assistance of counsel issues are mixed questions of law and fact, which are fully reviewable on appeal. When a claim made in an application for post-conviction relief is clearly and unambiguously contradicted by the record, summary disposition is appropriate. When determining if summary disposition is appropriate on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record and transcripts are generally not adequate if the petitioner alleges incidents outside of the record.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Stein"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230200",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Garaas"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. White",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND266",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-22",
+    "case_names": "Disciplinary Board v. Pilch",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/111370",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180020",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DRUGS/CONTRABAND",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 266",
-    "summaries": "The warrantless search of supervised probationer's home is reasonable under totality of the circumstances and does not violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "White"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240023",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Pilch"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Vollrath",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND269",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-09",
+    "case_names": "Disciplinary Board v. Spencer",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/82332",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180161",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 269",
-    "summaries": "Once a judgment is final, a district court generally no longer has jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify that judgment.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Vollrath"
+    "docket_numbers": "20240012",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Spencer"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Mejia",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND249",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "WSI v. Kringlie",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/129045",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180178",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "ASSAULT",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 249",
-    "summaries": "Summary affirmance is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. In a case tried without a jury, the court need only find the defendant guilty or not guilty.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Mejia"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230184",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "WSI"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Martin",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND262",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "State v. Good Bear",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/80896",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180141",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 262",
-    "summaries": "District court did not err in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment where party was properly provided notice and served with the motion for default judgment.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Martin"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230193",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Hebert",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND252",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Sherwood v. Sherwood",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/52208",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180171",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 252",
-    "summaries": "A criminal judgment convicting the defendant of tampering or damaging a public service is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Hebert"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230230",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Other",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Sherwood"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Ferderer",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND254",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Pinks v. Kelsch",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/907",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180072",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 254",
-    "summaries": "A revocation of a sentence for a probation violation does not violate double jeopardy.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Ferderer"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230161",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Malpractice",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Pinks"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Bornsen",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND256",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Mahad v. WSI",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/133423",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180093",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 256",
-    "summaries": "Investigatory traffic stops are valid when the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable and articulable suspicion the motorist has violated or is violating the law. Traffic violations, even if considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct which provide officers with requisite suspicion for conducting investigatory stops.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Bornsen"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230332",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Mahad"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND267",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Lyons v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/85291",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180074",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 267",
-    "summaries": "Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a district court cannot amend an order to impose further affirmative relief. If an amendment grants no further relief but merely more clearly articulates the same substantive relief, it may be made under Rule 60(a) at any time.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Alber"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230151",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Lyons"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Sorlie v. Sorlie",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND248",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Landis v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/109657",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180071",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 248",
-    "summaries": "A district court's award of residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Sorlie"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230224",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Landis"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Schultz v. Schultz",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND259",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "LAWC Holdings v. Vincent Watford",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/129645",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180097",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 259",
-    "summaries": "There is no bright-line rule to distinguish between short and long-term marriages. This Court will not reverse a district court's findings on valuation of marital property unless they are clearly erroneous. When a distribution of property includes periodic cash payments from one spouse to another, a district court has broad authority to provide for the payment of interest in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the property.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Schultz"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230087",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Real Property",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Sabot v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND251",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Keller v. Keller",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/106171",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180191",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 251",
-    "summaries": "Summary dismissal of post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Sabot"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230258",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Contempt of Court",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Keller"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Rustad v. Baumgartner",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND268",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Friends of the Rail Bridge v. N.D. Dep't of Water Resources",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/3914",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180080",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 268",
-    "summaries": "A parenting plan is clearly erroneous when it denies a parent overnights or extended summer visitation without evidence of endangerment to the child's physical or emotional health.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Rustad"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230240",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Matter of Kulink",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND260",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Estate of Heath",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/112013",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180083",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 260",
-    "summaries": "A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Matter of Kulink"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230250",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Estate of Heath"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Lechner v. WSI",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND270",
+    "case_dates": "2024-02-08",
+    "case_names": "Don's Garden Center v. The Garden District (consol. w/20230271)",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/86470",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180203",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "WORKERS COMPENSATION",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 270",
-    "summaries": "A claim for workers' compensation benefits must be filed within one year after the injury. The date of injury for purposes of determining whether a claim for benefits is timely filed is the first date a reasonable lay person, not learned in medicine, knew or should have known that he suffered a compensable work-related injury and has either lost wages or received medical treatment.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Lechner"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230270",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Landlord/Tenant",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "LeClair v. Sorel",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND255",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Swanson v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/77902",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180155",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TRANSPORTATION DEPT.",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 255",
-    "summaries": "The implied consent advisory provided to a driver after an arrest for driving under the influence must be substantively complete. The entire substance of the advisory was conveyed despite the officer's omission of the word \"punishable\" from the statutory language in N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(3)(a).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "LeClair"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230249",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Swanson"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Interest of D.V.A.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND250",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Stancel v. Stancel",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/85428",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180166",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 250",
-    "summaries": "A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of D.V.A."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230287",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Child Support",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Stancel"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Interest of A.L.E.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND257",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Plaisimond v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/130937",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180341",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 257",
-    "summaries": "Prenatal exposure to any controlled substance is a ground for a finding of deprivation. A parent's past conduct can form the basis to predict future behavior and a parent's lack of cooperation with social service agencies is evidence that the causes and conditions of deprivation will likely continue. When a parent, through voluntary actions, without reasonable justification, makes herself unavailable to care for and parent a young child, the child should not be expected to wait or assume the risk involved in waiting for permanency and stability in her life.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of A.L.E."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230252",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Plaisimond"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Hunts Along v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND261",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Interest of R.S.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/116847",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180146",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TRANSPORTATION DEPT.",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 261",
-    "summaries": "Department did not err in revoking defendant's drivers license under N.D.C.C. \u00a7 39-20-14 following defendant's refusal of on-site breath test. A party who refuses a screening or chemical test cannot challenge the unperformed tests' compliance with statutory requirements. We cannot logically construe the statutes to require the State to provide foundational evidence for a test which was refuse, thus making the foundational evidence irrelevant.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230410",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Mental Health",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of R.S."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Green v. Swiers",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND258",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Interest of J.C.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/125517",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180114",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 258",
-    "summaries": "A district court's decision on a motion to relocate is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. To modify parenting time, the movant must establish a material change of circumstances has occurred since the prior visitation order and that it is in the best interests of the child to modify the order. A material change in circumstances sufficient to amend a parenting time order is similar to, but distinct from, a material change in circumstances sufficient to change primary residential responsibility. A district court's decision to modify parenting time is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Green"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230377",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of J.C."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Dale Exploration, LLC v. Hiepler",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND271",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Hoover v. NDDOT",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/113524",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180065",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "REAL PROPERTY",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 271",
-    "summaries": "The settlor of an irrevocable trust with the power to remove trust property must convey mineral interests that he sold in an individual capacity while the property was titled under the trust.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Hiepler"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230226",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Hoover"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Dahms v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND263",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-22",
+    "case_names": "Estate of Lindberg",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/111009",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180202",
-    "judges": "VandeWalle, Gerald W.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "INSURANCE",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 263",
-    "summaries": "A detached garage connected to a dwelling by a deck constituted an \"other structure\" rather than a \"dwelling\" for purposes of determining insurance coverage. Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Dahms"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230102",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Estate of Lindberg"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "City of Grand Forks v. Barendt",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND272",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "Yalartai v. Miller",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/155245",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180227",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "DUI/DUS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 272",
-    "summaries": "The implied consent advisory under N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(3) must be read after placing an individual under arrest and before administering a chemical test to determine alcohol concentration or the presence of other drugs.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Barendt"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230159",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Child Support",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Yalartai"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND273",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "State v. Williamson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/126998",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180116",
-    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CONTRACTS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 273",
-    "summaries": "An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor. North Dakota law recognizes an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in construction contracts. A contracting party cannot escape its liability on the contract by merely assigning its duties and rights under the contract to a third party. The remedy for fraud is rescission of the contract and requires returning the parties back to their original positions. Deceit is not an action dependent on a contract it is a tort cause of action, and allows recovery of damages upon proof of an affirmative misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. When a party requests leave to amend without requesting additional discovery and a summary judgment motion has been docketed, the proposed amendment must be both theoretically viable and solidly grounded in the record. The measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount which will compensate the injured person for the loss which fulfillment of the contract would have prevented or the breach of the contract now requires.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Bakke"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230205",
+    "judges": "Bahr, Douglas Alan",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Williamson"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-12-06",
-    "case_names": "Adoption of A.S.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND265",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "State v. Salou",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/150015",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180326",
-    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 265",
-    "summaries": "A district court's findings of fact in a termination of parental rights proceeding will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding on one of three alternative grounds authorizing termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. 14-15-19(3) is sufficient to uphold a district court's order terminating parental rights on that ground.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Adoption of A.S."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230196",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Salou"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-19",
-    "case_names": "Johnston Law Office, P.C. v. Brakke",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND247",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "State v. Gonzalez",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/76624",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180029",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 247",
-    "summaries": "If a party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the party opposing the motion must present competent admissible evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Brakke"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230133",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Gonzalez"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-15",
-    "case_names": "Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND1",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "State v. Gietzen",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/86590",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20160436",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "",
-    "citations": "2019 ND 1",
-    "summaries": "Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230181",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Gietzen"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-13",
-    "case_names": "Thompson v. Molde",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND245",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "State v. A.J.H.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/127572",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170127",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TAX RELATED",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 245",
-    "summaries": "Summary judgment allows for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for a frivolous appeal.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Thompson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230241",
+    "judges": "McEvers, Lisa K. Fair",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "A.J.H."
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Upton v. Nolan",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND243",
+    "case_dates": "2024-01-10",
+    "case_names": "Larson Latham Huettl v. Vetter",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/40003",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180119",
-    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\\Other)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 243",
-    "summaries": "Although a district court has continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time, due process requires a parent receive adequate notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. Due process notice requirements are satisfied when an unpled issue is tried by the implied consent of the parties. Consent to try an issue outside the pleadings cannot be implied from evidence which is relevant to the pleadings but which also bears on an unpleaded issue. A district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions and in awarding attorney fees as reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Upton"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230113",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Contracts",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Vetter"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Sanchez",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND242",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "State v. Nelson",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/51719",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180063",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "THEFT",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 242",
-    "summaries": "A district court may extend on its own a self-imposed deadline for scheduling or holding a restitution hearing.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Sanchez"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230234",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Rogers",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND244",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "State v. Gai",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/48715",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170389",
-    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
-    "nature_of_suit": "SEXUAL OFFENSE",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 244",
-    "summaries": "Defendant appeals from a district court judgment for gross sexual imposition. Because the district court did not make individualized findings supporting closure of the competency hearing under Waller, the Sixth Amendment public trial guarantee wasviolated. The restitution award was proper and it is affirmed consistent with our remand. We remand for further proceedings.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230231",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Gai"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Jessee",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND241",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Mead v. Hatzenbeller",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/106590",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180047",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230185",
     "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 241",
-    "summaries": "Questions of fact in a criminal bench trial are reviewed in the same manner as questions of fact in a criminal jury trial. Tampering with a public service requires an alteration or harmful change towards property under the control of the public service.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Jessee"
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Other",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Mead"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "State v. Etemad",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND240",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Koon v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/133082",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170421",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 240",
-    "summaries": "A district court judgment entered after a jury found Etemad guilty of terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). Under an obvious error analysis, in order to find a violation affects substantial rights a moving party must demonstrate the violation significantly prejudiced him.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Etemad"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230139",
+    "judges": "Tufte, Jerod E.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Koon"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Prairie Winds Apartments 1, LLC v. Stark County Board of Commissioners (cons",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND233",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Heywood v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/109701",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180149",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 233",
-    "summaries": "To properly appeal a board of county commissioners' decision relating to tax matters, a landowner must file a notice of appeal on a board member and the state tax commissioner within thirty days of the board's decision.",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230223",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Heywood"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Pederson v. State",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND239",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Gaede v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/115512",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180126",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "POST-CONVICTION RELIEF",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 239",
-    "summaries": "Judgment denying motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Pederson"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230269",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Gaede"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "McGath v. Waide",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND234",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Everett v. State",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/75623",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180159",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 234",
-    "summaries": "A district court disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "McGath"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230192",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Everett"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Marler v. Martin",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND238",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-28",
+    "case_names": "Anderson v. Lamm",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/128308",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180019",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "CONTRACTS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 238",
-    "summaries": "A judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Marler"
+    "docket_numbers": "20230301",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Other",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Anderson"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Interest of G.F.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND236",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-15",
+    "case_names": "Shift Services v. Ames Savage Water Solutions",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/80480",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180332",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 236",
-    "summaries": "Juvenile court order terminating parental rights under N.D.C.C. 27-20-44(1)(c)(1) and N.D.C.C. 27-20-44(1)(c)(2) is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of G.F."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230217",
+    "judges": "Jensen, Jon J.",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Contracts",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": ""
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "Guardianship/Conservatorship of M.J.K.",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND235",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-15",
+    "case_names": "Mathisen v. Becker-Johner",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/114841",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180058",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 235",
-    "summaries": "District Court's finding that the ward fails to make a prima facie case to terminate guardianship is summarily affirmed under N.D.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). Constitutional issues not pursued in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.",
-    "case_name_shorts": "Guardianship/Conservatorship of M.J.K."
+    "docket_numbers": "20230263",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Real Property",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Mathisen"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-11-06",
-    "case_names": "City of Fargo v. Nelson",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND237",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-15",
+    "case_names": "Interest of Wedmore",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/127653",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20170424",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "OTHER (Civil)",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 237",
-    "summaries": "Civil judgment finding appellant's property constitutes a public nuisance, requiring abatement of the nuisance, and granting a permanent injunction from maintaining a nuisance on the property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4),(7).",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "docket_numbers": "20230150",
+    "judges": "Crothers, Daniel John",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual",
+    "summaries": "",
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of Wedmore"
   },
   {
-    "case_dates": "2018-10-18",
-    "case_names": "Vacancy in Judgeship No. 2, East Central Judicial District",
-    "download_urls": "http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND232",
+    "case_dates": "2023-12-15",
+    "case_names": "Interest of J.M.M.",
+    "download_urls": "https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/121275",
     "precedential_statuses": "Published",
     "blocked_statuses": false,
     "date_filed_is_approximate": false,
-    "docket_numbers": "20180334",
-    "judges": "Per Curiam",
-    "nature_of_suit": "",
-    "citations": "2018 ND 232",
+    "docket_numbers": "20230348",
+    "judges": "",
+    "nature_of_suit": "Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights",
     "summaries": "",
-    "case_name_shorts": ""
+    "case_name_shorts": "Interest of J.M.M."
   }
 ]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.html b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.html
index ab4874f2f..ada77eb56 100644
--- a/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.html
+++ b/tests/examples/opinions/united_states/nd_example.html
@@ -1,52 +1,25 @@
-
 <!DOCTYPE html>
-<html lang="en-US" class="static ndcourtsdockets-module">
+<html lang="en-US" class="static dir-ltr ndcourtsopinionsearch-module" dir="ltr">
+
 <head>
-    <meta charset="utf-8" />
     <title>North Dakota Court System</title>
-    <link href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Lato&amp;subset=latin" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-<link href="/Modules/Orchard.Resources/Styles/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-<link href="/Modules/Orchard.Resources/styles/Fontawesome5/all.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-<link href="/Themes/NDCourts/Styles/Site.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-<link href="/Modules/Orchard.Resources/Styles/font-awesome.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
-<script src="/Modules/Orchard.Resources/scripts/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
-<script src="/Modules/Orchard.Resources/scripts/bootstrap.bundle.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
-<!--[if lt IE 9]>
-<script src="/Core/Shapes/Scripts/html5.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
-<![endif]-->
-<meta content="Orchard" name="generator" />
-<meta content="IE=edge,chrome=1" http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" />
-<meta charset="utf-8" />
-<meta content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, shrink-to-fit=no" name="viewport" />
-<link href="/modules/orchard.themes/Content/orchard.ico" rel="shortcut icon" type="image/x-icon" />
-<!-- Global site tag (gtag.js) - Google Analytics -->
-<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-127209654-1"></script>
-<script>
-  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
-
-  function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
-
-  gtag('js', new Date());
-
-  gtag('config', 'UA-127209654-1');
-</script>
-    <script>        (function (d) { d.className = "dyn" + d.className.substring(6, d.className.length); })(document.documentElement);</script>
 </head>
+
 <body>
 
 
 
 
-<div id="layout-wrapper">
-    <div class="group d-none d-lg-block d-xl-block active" id="sidebar-wrapper">
-        <div class="zone zone-side-bar">
-<article class="widget-side-bar widget-menu-widget widget">
+    <div id="layout-wrapper">
+        <div class="group d-none d-lg-block d-xl-block active" id="sidebar-wrapper">
+            <div class="zone zone-side-bar">
+                <article class="widget-side-bar widget-menu-widget widget">
 
 
 
 
-<style>
-    /*#layout-wrapper {
+                    <style>
+                        /*#layout-wrapper {
         display: flex;
         width: 100%;
         align-items: stretch;
@@ -54,28 +27,28 @@
         overflow: hidden;
     }*/
 
-    .mega-dropdown-menu{
-        width: 100vw !important;
-    }
-
-    #layout-wrapper {
-        display: flex;
-        width: 100%;
-    }
-
-    #sidebar-wrapper {
-        width: 250px;
-        position: fixed;
-        top: 0;
-        right: 0;
-        height: 100vh;
-        z-index: 999;
-        background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(73,155,234,1) 0%,rgba(32,124,229,1) 100%);
-        color: #fff;
-        transition: all 0.3s;
-    }
-
-    /*#sidebar-wrapper {
+                        .mega-dropdown-menu {
+                            width: 100vw !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #layout-wrapper {
+                            display: flex;
+                            width: 100%;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper {
+                            width: 250px;
+                            position: fixed;
+                            top: 0;
+                            right: 0;
+                            height: 100vh;
+                            z-index: 999;
+                            background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(73, 155, 234, 1) 0%, rgba(32, 124, 229, 1) 100%);
+                            color: #fff;
+                            transition: all 0.3s;
+                        }
+
+                        /*#sidebar-wrapper {
         min-width: 250px;
         max-width: 250px;
         min-height: 100vh;
@@ -83,2965 +56,3731 @@
         color: #fff;
         transition: all 0.3s;
     }*/
-        .zone-side-bar{
-            padding: 0 !important;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper .container-fluid{
-            padding: 0 !important;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper.active {
-            margin-right: -250px;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper a.nav-link{
-            font-size: 20px !important;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper ul li a.nav-link:hover, #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item:hover {
-            background: #3979B7;
-            border-radius: 0 !important;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item{
-            padding: 0 !important;
-        }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item a{
-            padding: .5em 1em !important;
-        }
-
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu{
-            background: none !important;
-            border: 0 !important;
-        }
-
-            #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu .nav-link {
-                color: #fff !important;
-                text-decoration: none !important;
-                padding: .5em 2em !important;
-                width: 100%;
-            }
-
-            #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu a.nav-link:hover {
-                background-color: #fff;
-                color: #3979B7 !important;
-                border-radius: 0;
-            }
-
-        #sidebar-wrapper .sidebar-header {
-            padding: 20px;
-            background: #3979B7;
-        }
-
-        .sidebar-header h3 {
-            font-size: 1.5em;
-        }
-
-        @media (max-width: 768px) {
-            .zone-side-bar {
-                margin-right: -250px;
-        }
-        #sidebar.active {
-            margin-right: 0;
-        }
-    }
-
-    /*#content {
-        width: 100%;
+                        .zone-side-bar {
+                            padding: 0 !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper .container-fluid {
+                            padding: 0 !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper.active {
+                            margin-right: -250px;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper a.nav-link {
+                            font-size: 20px !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper ul li a.nav-link:hover,
+                        #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item:hover {
+                            background: #3979B7;
+                            border-radius: 0 !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item {
+                            padding: 0 !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper ul li.nav-item a {
+                            padding: .5em 1em !important;
+                        }
+
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu {
+                            background: none !important;
+                            border: 0 !important;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu .nav-link {
+                            color: #fff !important;
+                            text-decoration: none !important;
+                            padding: .5em 2em !important;
+                            width: 100%;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper .dropdown-menu a.nav-link:hover {
+                            background-color: #fff;
+                            color: #3979B7 !important;
+                            border-radius: 0;
+                        }
+
+                        #sidebar-wrapper .sidebar-header {
+                            padding: 20px;
+                            background: #3979B7;
+                        }
+
+                        .sidebar-header h3 {
+                            font-size: 1.5em;
+                        }
+
+                        @media (max-width: 768px) {
+                            .zone-side-bar {
+                                margin-right: -250px;
+                            }
+
+                            #sidebar.active {
+                                margin-right: 0;
+                            }
+                        }
+
+                        /*#content {
+        width: 100%;        
         min-height: 100vh;
         transition: all 0.3s;
     }*/
 
-    #content {
-        width: 100%;
-        min-height: 100vh;
-        transition: all 0.3s;
-        top: 0;
-        left: 0;
-    }
-        #content.active {
-            width: calc(100% - 250px);
-        }
-</style>
-
-<script>
-    $(document).ready(function () {
-        $("#sidebar-wrapper").mCustomScrollbar({
-            theme: "minimal"
-        });
-
-        //$('#sidebarCollapse').on('click', function () {
-        //    $('#sidebar-wrapper').toggleClass('active');
-        //});
-
-        $('#sidebarCollapse').on('click', function () {
-            // open or close navbar
-            $('#sidebar-wrapper, #content').toggleClass('active');
-            // close dropdowns
-            $('.collapse.in').toggleClass('in');
-            // and also adjust aria-expanded attributes we use for the open/closed arrows
-            // in our CSS
-            $('a[aria-expanded=true]').attr('aria-expanded', 'false');
-        });
-
-    });
-</script>
-
-<nav id="sidebar">
-    <div class="sidebar-header">
-        <h3>How Do I</h3>
-    </div>
-    <ul class="list-unstyled components navbar-nav">
-
-<li class="nav-item first">            <a class="nav-link" href="/public-access">Search Records &amp; Pay Fines</a>
-</li>
-<li class="nav-item">            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help">Self-Help</a>
-</li>
-<li class="nav-item">            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations">Court Locations</a>
-</li>
-<li class="nav-item">            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions">Supreme Court Opinions</a>
-</li>
-<li class="nav-item">            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/Jurors-Handbook">Jury Duty</a>
-</li>
-<li class="nav-item last">            <a class="nav-link" href="/lawyers">Lawyer Search</a>
-</li>
-    </ul>
-</nav>
-</article></div>
-    </div>
-
-<div id="content">
-
-
-    <div id="header-menu-wrapper">
-            <header id="layout-header" class="container-fluid">
-                <div id="header-row">
-                    <div class="zone zone-header row">
-    <div class="col-md-5">
-        <a href="/">
-            <img id="logo" class="col-md-4 responsive" src="/Themes/NDCourts/Content/statecourts_logo_blue.png" />
-            <img id="branding" src="/Themes/NDCourts/Content/statecourts_type_white.png" class="responsive" />
-        </a>
-    </div>
-    <form action="/NDCourtsSearch" class="col-md-4 offset-md-3 col-lg-4 offset-lg-3" id="mainSearch" method="get">
-        <div class="input-group mb-3">
-            <input id="q" name="q" type="text" class="form-control" placeholder="Search North Dakota Courts" aria-label="Search North Dakota Courts" aria-describedby="basic-addon2">
-            <div class="input-group-append">
-                <span class="input-group-text" id="basic-addon2"><button class="btn" type="submit" style="background-color: transparent;padding: 0;"><i class="fa fa-search"></i></button></span>
+                        #content {
+                            width: 100%;
+                            min-height: 100vh;
+                            transition: all 0.3s;
+                            top: 0;
+                            left: 0;
+                        }
+
+                        #content.active {
+                            width: calc(100% - 250px);
+                        }
+                    </style>
+
+                    <script>
+                        $(document).ready(function () {
+                            $("#sidebar-wrapper").mCustomScrollbar({
+                                theme: "minimal"
+                            });
+
+                            //$('#sidebarCollapse').on('click', function () {
+                            //    $('#sidebar-wrapper').toggleClass('active');
+                            //});
+
+                            $('#sidebarCollapse').on('click', function () {
+                                // open or close navbar
+                                $('#sidebar-wrapper, #content').toggleClass('active');
+                                // close dropdowns
+                                $('.collapse.in').toggleClass('in');
+                                // and also adjust aria-expanded attributes we use for the open/closed arrows
+                                // in our CSS
+                                $('a[aria-expanded=true]').attr('aria-expanded', 'false');
+                            });
+
+                        });
+                    </script>
+
+                    <nav id="sidebar">
+                        <div class="sidebar-header">
+                            <h3>How Do I</h3>
+                        </div>
+                        <ul class="list-unstyled components navbar-nav">
+
+                            <li class="nav-item first"> <a class="nav-link" href="/public-access">Search Records &amp;
+                                    Pay Fines</a>
+                            </li>
+                            <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help">Self-Help</a>
+                            </li>
+                            <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations">Court Locations</a>
+                            </li>
+                            <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/opinions">Supreme Court
+                                    Opinions</a>
+                            </li>
+                            <li class="nav-item"> <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/Jurors-Handbook">Jury
+                                    Duty</a>
+                            </li>
+                            <li class="nav-item last"> <a class="nav-link" href="/lawyers">Lawyer Search</a>
+                            </li>
+                        </ul>
+                    </nav>
+                </article>
             </div>
         </div>
-    </form>
-</div>
-                </div>
-            </header>
-                    <div id="navigation" class="group">
-                <div class="row">
-                    <div class="col-md-10 p-0">
-                        <div class="zone zone-navigation">
-<article class="widget-navigation widget-menu-widget widget">
-
-
-<script>
-
-</script>
-
-<nav class="navbar navbar-expand-lg navbar-dark">
-    <button class="navbar-toggler" type="button" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbarSupportedContent" aria-controls="navbarSupportedContent" aria-expanded="false" aria-label="Toggle navigation">
-        <span class="navbar-toggler-icon"></span>
-    </button>
-
-    <div class="collapse navbar-collapse" id="navbarSupportedContent">
-        <ul class="navbar-nav mr-auto">
-
-<li class="dropdown nav-item first"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="58948" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="/" role="button">Home</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="58948">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/about-us">About Us</a>
-
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-</li>
-<li class="dropdown nav-item"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="58946" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="/supreme-court" role="button">Supreme Court</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="58946">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Cases</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/opinion-docket-search">Opinion/Docket Search</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions">Recent Opinions</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/listen-to-court">Listen to Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/calendar">View Calendar</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/filing">Filing With the Supreme Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/news/north-dakota/north-dakota-supreme-court/notices">Notices</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees">Committees and Boards</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees/administrative-council">Administrative Council</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees/board-of-law-examiners">Board of Law Examiners</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees/disciplinary-board">Disciplinary Board</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees/joint-procedure-committee">Joint Procedure</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees/judicial-conduct-commission">Judicial Conduct Commission</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/committees">more...</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Get Connected</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/subscribe">Subscribe</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/justices-teaching-institute">Justices Teaching Institute</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/taking-the-court-to-schools">Taking the Court to Schools</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Publications</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/citation-manual">Citation Manual</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/justices">Current Justices</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/supreme-court/history-of-the-supreme-court">History of the Supreme Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/district-court-appeal-to-supreme-court">Appealing a Case</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-</li>
-<li class="dropdown nav-item"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="44965" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="/district-court" role="button">District Courts</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="44965">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court">District Court</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/public-access">Case Search &amp; Pay Fines</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/Jurors-Handbook">Jury Duty</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations">Court Locations</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court">District Court Information</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/district-court-judges">District Court Judges</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Court Resources</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-courts/e-filing-resources">E-Filing - resources</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-courts/e-filing-portal">E-File Portal</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/lawyers">Find an Attorney</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/court-fees">Court Fees</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/court-interpreters">Court Interpreters</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/information-technology/data-access">Access to Court Records</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Court Resources (cont.)</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/alternative-dispute-resolution/roster">Alternative Dispute Resolution Roster</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/parenting-coordinator-roster">Parenting Coordinator Roster</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/district-court/parenting-investigator-legal-guardian-ad-litem-roster">Parenting Inv/GAL Roster</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/interest-rate-on-judgments">Interest Rate on Judgments</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-</li>
-<li class="dropdown nav-item"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="44967" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="#" role="button">Other Courts</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="44967">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/municipal-courts">Municipal Courts</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations/bismarck">Bismarck</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations/fargo">Fargo</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations/grand-forks">Grand Forks</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations/minot">Minot</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations/williston">Williston</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/court-locations#municipal-courts">more...</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Juvenile</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-court">Juvenile Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-court#contact">Contact Juvenile Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-court#services">Juvenile Programs and Services</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-drug-court">Juvenile Drug Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-drug-court/juvenile-drug-court-contact-information">Contact Juvenile Drug Court</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Other Courts</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/domestic-violence-court">Domestic Violence Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/adult-hybrid-dwi-drug-court">Adult Hybrid DWI/Drug Courts</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/office-of-administrative-hearings">Office of Administrative Hearings</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/federal">Federal Courts</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/tribal">Tribal Courts</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-</li>
-<li class="dropdown nav-item"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="44600" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="#" role="button">Legal Resources</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="44600">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules">Court Rules</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules/ndsupctadminr">Administrative Rules</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules/ndrappp">Appellate Procedure</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules/ndrcivp">Civil Procedure</a>
 
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules/ndrcrimp">Criminal Procedure</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules/ndrct">Rules of Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/rules">more...</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Resources</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/news/north-dakota/north-dakota-supreme-court/notices">Notices</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/legal-research">Legal Research</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/law-library">Law Library</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="https://www.legis.nd.gov/agency-rules/north-dakota-administrative-code">North Dakota Administrative Code</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="https://www.legis.nd.gov/general-information/north-dakota-century-code">North Dakota Century Code</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-resources/nd-constitution">North Dakota Constitution</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="https://www.usa.gov/laws-and-regs">Federal Laws and Regulations</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx">U.S. Supreme Court Opinions</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help">Legal Self Help Center</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/answering-a-civil-action">Answering a Summons and Complaint</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/divorce">Divorce</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/establishing-custody-and-visitation">Establishing Custody &amp; Visitation</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/informal-probate">Probate an Estate</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help/small-claims">Small Claims</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/legal-self-help">more...</a>
+        <div id="content">
+
+
+
+            <div>
+                <div class="group">
+                    <div id="layout-content" class="group">
+                        <div class="container">
+                            <div class="zone zone-content">
+
+
+                                <style>
+                                    .pagination {
+                                        margin: 0;
+                                    }
+
+                                    .ul.pagination {
+                                        display: inline-block;
+                                        padding: 0;
+                                        margin: 0;
+                                    }
+
+                                    ul.pagination li {
+                                        display: inline;
+                                    }
+
+                                    ul.pagination li a {
+                                        color: black;
+                                        float: left;
+                                        padding: 8px 16px;
+                                        text-decoration: none;
+                                        transition: background-color .3s;
+                                    }
+
+                                    ul.pagination li a.active {
+                                        background-color: #4CAF50;
+                                        color: white;
+                                    }
+
+                                    ul.pagination li a:hover:not(.active) {
+                                        background-color: #ddd;
+                                    }
+
+                                    label {
+                                        font-weight: normal !important;
+                                    }
+
+                                    .search-summary-left {
+                                        float: left;
+                                        font-style: italic;
+                                        margin-top: 0;
+                                        padding-left: 15px;
+                                    }
+
+                                    .search-summary-left em {
+                                        font-weight: bold;
+                                    }
+
+                                    select:not([size]):not([multiple]).form-control {
+                                        height: auto !important;
+                                        padding: .375rem !important;
+                                    }
+
+                                    input[type='text'] {
+                                        padding: .375rem !important;
+                                    }
+                                </style>
+
+                                <div class="row">
+                                    <div class="col-md-12">
+                                        <h1 class="page-title">Opinions</h1>
+                                        <p><strong>On this page, you can search and view the Supreme Court’s opinions.
+                                                If you wish to review the docket or documents filed in a matter, please
+                                                go to the Court’s <a
+                                                    href="https://portal.ctrack.ndcourts.gov/portal/search/case"
+                                                    target="_blank">public portal search page.</a></strong></p>
+                                        <div class="row" style="margin-bottom: .5em;">
+                                            <div class="col-md-12">
+                                                <form action="/supreme-court/opinions" method="get">
+                                                    <div class="form-row">
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-5">
+                                                            <label for="ddTopic">Topic </label>
+                                                            <select class="form-control" id="topic" name="topic">
+                                                                <option selected="selected" value="">Show All</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation">
+                                                                    Appeal - Administrative - Department of
+                                                                    Transportation</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service">
+                                                                    Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation">
+                                                                    Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Adoption">Appeal - Civil
+                                                                    - Adoption</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Child Support">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Child Support</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually
+                                                                    Dangerous Individual</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - CLE Review">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - CLE Review</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Contempt of Court">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Contempt of Court</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Contracts">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Contracts</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Corporations">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Corporations</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor">Appeal
+                                                                    - Civil - Debtor/Creditor</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Divorce">Appeal - Civil
+                                                                    - Divorce</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Election Contest">Appeal
+                                                                    - Civil - Election Contest</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Foreclosure">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Foreclosure</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Insurance">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Insurance</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Juvenile Law">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Juvenile Law</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Landlord/Tenant">Appeal
+                                                                    - Civil - Landlord/Tenant</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Malpractice">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Malpractice</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Mental Health">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Mental Health</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Other">Appeal - Civil -
+                                                                    Other</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Paternity">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Paternity</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury">Appeal
+                                                                    - Civil - Personal Injury</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Probate,  Wills, Trusts">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Real Property">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Real Property</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Civil - Tax Realted">Appeal -
+                                                                    Civil - Tax Realted</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)">
+                                                                    Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Arson">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Arson</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Assault">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Assault</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Criminal - Compulsory School Attendance">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Compulsory School Attendance
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Constitutional Law">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Constitutional Law</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Contempt of Court">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Contempt of Court</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Homicide">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Homicide</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Infraction">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Infraction</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law">Appeal
+                                                                    - Criminal - Juvenile Law</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony">Appeal
+                                                                    - Criminal - Misc. Felony</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Traffic Violation">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Traffic Violation</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Other">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Other</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Criminal - Post-Conviction Relief">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Post-Conviction Relief</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense</option>
+                                                                <option value="Appeal - Criminal - Theft">Appeal -
+                                                                    Criminal - Theft</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Criminal - Violation of City Ordinance">
+                                                                    Appeal - Criminal - Violation of City Ordinance
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights">
+                                                                    Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Board of Law Examiners - Other - Other">
+                                                                    Board of Law Examiners - Other - Other</option>
+                                                                <option value="Certified Question - Civil - Civil">
+                                                                    Certified Question - Civil - Civil</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Certified Question - Criminal - Criminal">
+                                                                    Certified Question - Criminal - Criminal</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding">
+                                                                    Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Discipline - Judge - Original Proceeding">
+                                                                    Discipline - Judge - Original Proceeding</option>
+                                                                <option value="Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule">
+                                                                    Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Certiorari">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Certiorari
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Habeas Corpus">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Habeas Corpus
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Injunction">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Injunction
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Mandamus">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Mandamus
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Prohibition">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Prohibition
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Supervision">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Supervision
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Certiorari">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Certiorari
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Habeas Corpus">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Habeas
+                                                                    Corpus</option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Prohibition">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Prohibition
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option
+                                                                    value="Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision">
+                                                                    Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
+                                                                </option>
+                                                            </select>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-5">
+                                                            <label for="ddAuthor">Author </label>
+                                                            <select class="form-control" id="author" name="author">
+                                                                <option selected="selected" value="">Show All</option>
+                                                                <option value="Bahr, Douglas Alan">Bahr, Douglas Alan
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Bakken, A.">Bakken, A.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Burdick, Eugene">Burdick, Eugene</option>
+                                                                <option value="Christofferson, Lee">Christofferson, Lee
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Coyne, Eugene">Coyne, Eugene</option>
+                                                                <option value="Crothers, Daniel John">Crothers, Daniel
+                                                                    John</option>
+                                                                <option value="Englert, Hamilton">Englert, Hamilton
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Erickstad, Ralph">Erickstad, Ralph
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Fredricks, M.">Fredricks, M.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Friederich, Ray">Friederich, Ray</option>
+                                                                <option value="Gefreh, Adam">Gefreh, Adam</option>
+                                                                <option value="Gierke III, H.">Gierke III, H.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Giese, Emil">Giese, Emil</option>
+                                                                <option value="Glaser, Gerald">Glaser, Gerald</option>
+                                                                <option value="Hager, Harold">Hager, Harold</option>
+                                                                <option value="Hagerty, Gail">Hagerty, Gail</option>
+                                                                <option value="Hatch, Larry">Hatch, Larry</option>
+                                                                <option value="Heen, Douglas">Heen, Douglas</option>
+                                                                <option value="Hoberg, Gordon">Hoberg, Gordon</option>
+                                                                <option value="Hodny, William">Hodny, William</option>
+                                                                <option value="Ilvedson, Roy">Ilvedson, Roy</option>
+                                                                <option value="Jansonius, Clifford">Jansonius, Clifford
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Jensen, Jon J.">Jensen, Jon J.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Johnson, J.">Johnson, J.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Johnson, Nels">Johnson, Nels</option>
+                                                                <option value="Jorgensen, Donald">Jorgensen, Donald
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Kapsner, Carol">Kapsner, Carol</option>
+                                                                <option value="Kelsch, Clemens">Kelsch, Clemens</option>
+                                                                <option value="Kerian, Jon">Kerian, Jon</option>
+                                                                <option value="Knudson, Harvey">Knudson, Harvey</option>
+                                                                <option value="Levine, Beryl">Levine, Beryl</option>
+                                                                <option value="Lynch, Wilfred">Lynch, Wilfred</option>
+                                                                <option value="Maring, Mary">Maring, Mary</option>
+                                                                <option value="Marquart, Steven">Marquart, Steven
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Maxwell, Ralph">Maxwell, Ralph</option>
+                                                                <option value="McEvers, Lisa K. Fair">McEvers, Lisa K.
+                                                                    Fair</option>
+                                                                <option value="Medd, Joel">Medd, Joel</option>
+                                                                <option value="Meschke, Herbert">Meschke, Herbert
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Morris, James">Morris, James</option>
+                                                                <option value="Muggli, Norbert">Muggli, Norbert</option>
+                                                                <option value="Murray, William">Murray, William</option>
+                                                                <option value="Neumann, William">Neumann, William
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Not Available">Not Available</option>
+                                                                <option value="O&#39;Keefe, James">O&#39;Keefe, James
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Olson, Everett">Olson, Everett</option>
+                                                                <option value="Paulson, Wm.">Paulson, Wm.</option>
+                                                                <option value="Pederson, Vernon">Pederson, Vernon
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Per Curiam, Per Curiam">Per Curiam, Per
+                                                                    Curiam</option>
+                                                                <option value="Sand, Paul">Sand, Paul</option>
+                                                                <option value="Sandstrom, Dale">Sandstrom, Dale</option>
+                                                                <option value="Schmalenberger, Allan">Schmalenberger,
+                                                                    Allan</option>
+                                                                <option value="Strutz, Alvin">Strutz, Alvin</option>
+                                                                <option value="Teigen, Obert">Teigen, Obert</option>
+                                                                <option value="Tufte, Jerod E.">Tufte, Jerod E.</option>
+                                                                <option value="VandeWalle, Gerald">VandeWalle, Gerald
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="Vogel, Robert">Vogel, Robert</option>
+                                                            </select>
+                                                        </div>
+
+                                                    </div>
+                                                    <div class="form-row">
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-5">
+                                                            <label for="searchQuery">Search Query <a
+                                                                    href="/supreme-court/opinions/help"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-question-circle"></i></a></label>
+                                                            <input class="form-control" id="searchQuery"
+                                                                name="searchQuery" type="text" value="" />
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-2">
+                                                            <label for="pageSize">Trial Judge</label>
+                                                            <select class="form-control" id="trialJudge"
+                                                                name="trialJudge">
+                                                                <option value="6375">Agotness, Kari Michelle </option>
+                                                                <option value="3021">Albrecht, Warren H. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3897">Anderson, Norman G. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4289">Anderson, Sonna M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3465">Anderson, Zane </option>
+                                                                <option value="2793">Backes, Norman J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4940">Bahr, Douglas Alan </option>
+                                                                <option value="5409">Bailey, Susan Lynne </option>
+                                                                <option value="2070">Bakken, A. C. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2103">Beede, William M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3371">Bekken, James M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5674">Benson, Anthony Swain </option>
+                                                                <option value="2701">Berning, Wallace D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3024">Beyer, Tom M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4669">Blumer, Mark T. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2929">Bohlman, Bruce E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6007">Borgen, Daniel James </option>
+                                                                <option value="3553">Braaten, Karen Kosanda </option>
+                                                                <option value="5696">Brady, Reid Alan </option>
+                                                                <option value="7776">Chase, Nicholas W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4112">Christofferson, Lee A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4492">Clapp, Sonja </option>
+                                                                <option value="6306">Clark, Cherie LaVonne </option>
+                                                                <option value="4585">Cleveland, Constance L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2702">Cooke, Donald J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3293">Corwin, Wickham </option>
+                                                                <option value="4414">Cresap, Todd L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5181">Cruff, Bradley Allen </option>
+                                                                <option value="3185">Dawson, Georgia </option>
+                                                                <option value="2760">Dill III, Glenn </option>
+                                                                <option value="5296">Dillon, Kelly Ann </option>
+                                                                <option value="2964">Dosch, Ronald M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3531">Dyrud, Harlan </option>
+                                                                <option value="2452">Eckert, Robert L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5171">Ehlis, Rhonda Rae </option>
+                                                                <option value="7775">El-Dweek, Daniel Saleh </option>
+                                                                <option value="4183">Erickson, Ralph Robert </option>
+                                                                <option value="4804">Feland, Cynthia M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4098">Fontaine, Laurie A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4012">Foughty, Donovan John </option>
+                                                                <option value="1877">Fredricks, M. C. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4200">Freed, Robert A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2105">Garaas, John O. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6139">Gast, Daniel Eric </option>
+                                                                <option value="3571">Geiger, M. Richard </option>
+                                                                <option value="3881">Gion, James D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2426">Glaser, Gerald G. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3779">Goodman, Ronald E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3791">Goter, Wayne D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2710">Graff, Benny A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3395">Greenwood, Dann Edward </option>
+                                                                <option value="3221">Greenwood, John E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3083">Grenz, Donavin L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3574">Griffeth, Scott A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5509">Grinsteiner, John W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4251">Grosz, Richard W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2996">Gruber, F. Gene </option>
+                                                                <option value="4661">Hagar, Richard L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4382">Hager, Donald </option>
+                                                                <option value="3478">Hagerty, Gail </option>
+                                                                <option value="6184">Hammes, Jason J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4049">Haskell, Bruce B. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2487">Hatch, Larry M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6461">Hayden, Stephanie R. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2064">Heen, Douglas B. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3868">Herauf, William A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3398">Herman, Douglas R. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2590">Herseth, Harold B. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3311">Hilden, Ronald L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3158">Hill, James S. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2523">Hoberg, Gordon O. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2565">Hodny, William F. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4880">Hoffman, Randall Lynn </option>
+                                                                <option value="2999">Holte, Robert W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3000">Holum, Gary A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5433">Hovey, James D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2670">Hunke, Maurice R. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6335">Hurly, Michael Patrick </option>
+                                                                <option value="3855">Irby, John Charles </option>
+                                                                <option value="3631">Jacobson, Paul W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2809">Jahnke, Lawrence E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4783">Jensen, Jon J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6297">Johnson, Benjamen James </option>
+                                                                <option value="4314">Johnson, Janice B. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2969">Jorgensen, Donald L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2461">Kerian, Jon R. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2718">Ketterling, Lester </option>
+                                                                <option value="4028">Kleven, Debbie Gordon </option>
+                                                                <option value="5907">Knudson, Jay Dennis </option>
+                                                                <option value="2341">Kosanda, Frank </option>
+                                                                <option value="2812">Leclerc, Lawrence A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3702">Lee, Gary H. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5795">LeFevre, Troy J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2399">Lewis, Bayard </option>
+                                                                <option value="6310">Lofgren, Jackson John </option>
+                                                                <option value="6185">Louser, Stacy Joan </option>
+                                                                <option value="3592">Marquart, Steven L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4292">Mattson, Douglas L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5656">McCarthy, M. Jason </option>
+                                                                <option value="2295">McClintock, John C. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4812">McClintock, Jr., John C. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4521">McCullough, Steven E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5396">McEvers, Lisa K. Fair </option>
+                                                                <option value="3051">McGuire, Michael O. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3327">McLees, William W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3235">Medd, Joel D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4024">Merrick, Thomas E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3328">Metelmann, Thomas K. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5689">Narum, Daniel D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3785">Nelson, David W. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5980">Nesvig, Pamela Ann </option>
+                                                                <option value="3423">Neuharth, Gary D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2924">Neumann, William A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6857">Nieuwsma, Lindsey Renee </option>
+                                                                <option selected="selected" value="">Show All</option>
+                                                                <option value="2437">O&#39;Keefe, James H. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2779">Olson, Everett Nels </option>
+                                                                <option value="4526">Olson, Lonnie </option>
+                                                                <option value="3821">Olson, Thomas R. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2863">Paulson, John T. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5093">Portscheller, Connie Sue </option>
+                                                                <option value="3888">Racek, Frank L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3946">Reich, David E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3113">Riskedahl, Burt L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4390">Romanick, Bruce A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4042">Romanick, Lolita G. Hartl </option>
+                                                                <option value="3243">Rothe-Seeger, Cynthia </option>
+                                                                <option value="2952">Rustad, Gerald H. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5703">Rustad, Joshua B. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3118">Schmalenberger, Allan L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5940">Schmidt, Robin Ann </option>
+                                                                <option value="5705">Schmitz, Jay A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2911">Schneider, Dennis A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3737">Schneider, Thomas J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2542">Schulz, O. A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3341">Simonson, Mikal </option>
+                                                                <option value="6067">Sjue, Kirsten Marie </option>
+                                                                <option value="2473">Smith, Kirk </option>
+                                                                <option value="4712">Solheim, Susan J. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5918">Stiel, Stephannie Nicole </option>
+                                                                <option value="6037">Storbakken, Bonnie Louise </option>
+                                                                <option value="3194">Sturdevant, Michael G. </option>
+                                                                <option value="4216">Stutsman, Hal S. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3762">Thelen, John A. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2383">Thompson, Gordon Charles </option>
+                                                                <option value="6210">Thornton, Nicholas D. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2095">Tjon, Lowell O. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5976">Tufte, Jerod E. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3773">Uglem, Jonal Holt </option>
+                                                                <option value="5849">Van de Streek, Tristan Jones
+                                                                </option>
+                                                                <option value="6161">Vibeto, Aaron C. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3525">Vukelic, James M. </option>
+                                                                <option value="5326">Webb, Wade L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2985">Wefald, Robert O. </option>
+                                                                <option value="6545">Weiler, Bobbi Brown </option>
+                                                                <option value="2740">Weir, Harlan Patrick </option>
+                                                                <option value="2695">Weisenburger, Theodore </option>
+                                                                <option value="5039">Whelan, Barbara L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="2157">Wilson, Bert L. </option>
+                                                                <option value="3356">Wright, James A. </option>
+                                                            </select>
+
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-1">
+                                                            <label for="pageSize">Show</label>
+                                                            <select class="form-control" id="pageSize" name="pageSize">
+                                                                <option value="10">10</option>
+                                                                <option value="50">50</option>
+                                                                <option selected="selected" value="100">100</option>
+                                                            </select>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="form-group col-md-4">
+                                                            <label for="sortOrder">Order By</label>
+                                                            <div class="form-inline">
+                                                                <div class="form-group m-0 mr-1">
+                                                                    <select class="form-control" id="sortOrder"
+                                                                        name="sortOrder">
+                                                                        <option value="0">Relevance</option>
+                                                                        <option selected="selected" value="1">Newest
+                                                                        </option>
+                                                                    </select>
+                                                                </div>
+                                                                <button type="submit" class="btn btn-primary"
+                                                                    style="padding: .2rem .375rem;">Search</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                    <div class="form-row">
+
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </form>
+                                            </div>
+                                        </div>
+
+                                        <p class="search-summary-left float-left"><em>1 - 100</em> of <em>11089</em>
+                                            results</p>
+                                        <table class="table">
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230110<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161795','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Only those judgments and
+                                                                decrees which constitute a final determination of the
+                                                                parties&#39; rights to an action and those orders
+                                                                enumerated in N.D.C.C. &#167; 28-27-02 are
+                                                                appealable.<br /><br />Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies
+                                                                to final judgments or orders. A final judgment is a
+                                                                decree, order, or judgment &quot;from which an appeal
+                                                                lies.&quot; N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a).<br /><br />Rule 54(b),
+                                                                N.D.R.Civ.P., recognizes a district court may direct
+                                                                entry of a final judgment against only some of the
+                                                                parties to a litigation, but until final judgment is
+                                                                entered all orders are subject to revision.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Harris v. Oasis Petroleum, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230279<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161790','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A motion to alter or amend
+                                                                the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an
+                                                                abuse of discretion.<br />The question of who is a
+                                                                prevailing party under N.D.C.C. &#167; 28-26-06 is a
+                                                                question of law, subject to de novo review.<br />A
+                                                                prevailing party in a tort action must at least prevail
+                                                                on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. There
+                                                                may not be a single prevailing party when opposing
+                                                                parties each prevail on some issues.<br />Under North
+                                                                Dakota&#39;s comparative fault statute, N.D.C.C. &#167;
+                                                                32-03.2-02, in the case of a contributorily negligent
+                                                                plaintiff, any damages allowed shall be diminished in
+                                                                proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to
+                                                                the person recovering. However, N.D.C.C. &#167;
+                                                                32-03.2-02 does not provide for any diminution in the
+                                                                costs and disbursements to be allowed to a recovering
+                                                                plaintiff.<br />A district court has the discretion to
+                                                                award a prevailing party costs and disbursements under
+                                                                N.D.C.C. &#167; 28-26-06, without reduction by the
+                                                                party&#39;s percentage of fault. The law does not
+                                                                require a court to reduce costs awarded to the
+                                                                prevailing party based on its percentage of fault.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Glaum v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230236<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161784','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Rule 58 of the North Dakota
+                                                                Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious
+                                                                litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary
+                                                                action or proceeding, including any appeal from an
+                                                                administrative agency, any review of a referee order by
+                                                                the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court.
+                                                                Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents
+                                                                filed in criminal actions.<br /><br />An appeal from a
+                                                                vexatious litigant pre-filing order must be filed with
+                                                                the clerk of the supreme court within 60 days of service
+                                                                of notice of entry of the order. When there is no
+                                                                service of notice of entry of the order or evidence of
+                                                                actual knowledge of entry, the time for filing a notice
+                                                                of appeal does not begin to run.<br /><br />A presiding
+                                                                judge may determine a person is a vexatious litigant
+                                                                based on the finding that in the immediately preceding
+                                                                seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted,
+                                                                or maintained as a self-represented party at least three
+                                                                litigations that have been finally determined adversely
+                                                                to that person.<br /><br />If a response to the proposed
+                                                                pre-filing order is filed, the presiding judge may, in
+                                                                the judge&#39;s discretion, grant a hearing on the
+                                                                proposed order.<br /><br />An appellant is precluded
+                                                                from challenging an order that was not appealed from in
+                                                                the notice of appeal and raising an issue for the first
+                                                                time on appeal.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Williams
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230300<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161779','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A criminal judgment for
+                                                                attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is
+                                                                summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and
+                                                                (4).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230195<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161775','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: Wholesale
+                                                                adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
+                                                                law is disapproved.<br /><br />District courts retain
+                                                                authority to revisit interlocutory orders until entry of
+                                                                final judgment.<br /><br />Under the doctrine of merger,
+                                                                the provisions of an executory contract merge into an
+                                                                instrument conveying real property. Absent fraud or
+                                                                mistake, the conveying instrument alone governs
+                                                                determination of the rights of the parties to the
+                                                                transaction.<br /><br />Recordation of a granting
+                                                                instrument is not necessary to effect a conveyance. Nor
+                                                                is it necessary for a plaintiff to present the original
+                                                                conveying instrument to prevail in quiet title action.
+                                                                In a quiet title action ownership may be established
+                                                                through evidence that a conveying instrument was
+                                                                delivered but subsequently lost.<br />The equitable
+                                                                defense of laches may be available when a party delays
+                                                                enforcing his rights and a change in conditions during
+                                                                the delay results in prejudice to an adverse
+                                                                party.<br /><br />To have standing to litigate an issue
+                                                                a party must have suffered some injury from the
+                                                                putatively illegal action and the party must assert his
+                                                                own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim
+                                                                on the legal rights and interests of third
+                                                                parties.<br /><br />Parties may contract to a fee
+                                                                recovery standard that is either looser or stricter than
+                                                                statutory standards.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of Skorick
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230330<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually
+                                                                Dangerous Individual<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161771','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court must have
+                                                                sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous
+                                                                individual continues to have an inability to control his
+                                                                behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered
+                                                                with present conduct to determine if an individual
+                                                                continues to have an inability to control his behavior.
+                                                                Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability
+                                                                to control behavior just as violation of other
+                                                                institutional rules. The district court&#39;s findings
+                                                                are sufficient to show the individual continues to have
+                                                                an inability to control his behavior.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Zander, et al. v. Morsette
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230103<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161770','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> The district court controls
+                                                                the scope and substance of opening and closing
+                                                                arguments, and a district court&#39;s decision will not
+                                                                be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.<br /><br />A
+                                                                party is not prejudiced by a counsel&#39;s improper
+                                                                arguments when the district court instructs the jury not
+                                                                to consider counsel&#39;s comments as
+                                                                evidence.<br /><br />A court may grant a new trial on
+                                                                grounds the jury awarded excessive damages appearing to
+                                                                have been awarded under the influence of passion or
+                                                                prejudice. To justify the granting of a new trial,
+                                                                passion and prejudice usually connote anger, resentment,
+                                                                hate, and disregard of the rights of
+                                                                others.<br /><br />When a jury awards excessive damages,
+                                                                under appropriate circumstances, the district court and
+                                                                this Court on appeal, may order a reduction of the
+                                                                verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial
+                                                                be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess
+                                                                damages.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230382<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161765','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Orders for revocation of
+                                                                probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.
+                                                                35.1(a)(4).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384,
+                                                                &amp; 20230385)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230383<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161765','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Orders for revocation of
+                                                                probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.
+                                                                35.1(a)(4).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383,
+                                                                &amp; 20230385)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230384<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161765','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Orders for revocation of
+                                                                probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.
+                                                                35.1(a)(4).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382-20230384)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230385<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161765','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Orders for revocation of
+                                                                probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.
+                                                                35.1(a)(4).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Pederson
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230318<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161760','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight : To succeed
+                                                                in a challenge under Brady, the defendant must
+                                                                demonstrate the evidence was favorable to the defendant
+                                                                or plainly exculpatory.<br /><br />To preserve a
+                                                                sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal, the
+                                                                defendant must move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29
+                                                                unless the district court committed obvious error.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Musland v. Musland
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230345<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161754','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A marital distribution does
+                                                                not need to be equal to be equitable, and while
+                                                                assessing a property division, a district court may
+                                                                consider the importance of preserving the viability of a
+                                                                business operation like a family farm. Liquidation of an
+                                                                ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a
+                                                                last resort.<br /><br />A district court property
+                                                                division granting one party a net estate of $3,224,357
+                                                                while assigning them virtually no debt, and the other a
+                                                                net estate of $4,961,915 included all of the debt,
+                                                                almost no liquidity, and no retirement funds, was not
+                                                                clearly erroneous.<br /><br />A district court does not
+                                                                need to consider potential tax implications of a
+                                                                property division when the record failed to support a
+                                                                conclusion that the sale of the property was imminent,
+                                                                failed to indicate the tax liability, or quantified a
+                                                                specific liability to the court.<br /><br />A party is
+                                                                not entitled to an accrual of rent for the use of
+                                                                marital property during the pendency of divorce
+                                                                proceedings absent agreement or seeking district court
+                                                                intervention during the interim.<br />Language in a
+                                                                right to first refusal that does not clarify if the
+                                                                right is triggered by a response to &quot;any&quot;
+                                                                offer made to purchase property or if it is triggered by
+                                                                a party&#39;s &quot;acceptance&quot; of an offer is
+                                                                ambiguous.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Field v. Field, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230405<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161751','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Under Rule 30(a),
+                                                                N.D.R.App.P., a party&#39;s references to evidence in
+                                                                any document on appeal must cite to items in the record.
+                                                                This Court does not consider documents that are not in
+                                                                the certified record. After an initial custody decision
+                                                                has been made, parenting time modifications are governed
+                                                                by N.D.C.C. &#167; 14-05-22(2) and by standards set
+                                                                forth in caselaw. A parenting plan must include a
+                                                                provision on decision making responsibility under
+                                                                N.D.C.C. &#167; 14-09-30(2)(a), and that responsibility
+                                                                must be allocated in the best interests of the child,
+                                                                N.D.C.C. &#167; 14-09-31(2). A district court&#39;s
+                                                                decision on parenting time and decision making
+                                                                responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the
+                                                                clearly erroneous standard of review.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Hartson
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230243<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 5/2/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/161750','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: Changing the
+                                                                culpability level of the crime charged is not a
+                                                                modification of a statute. Under N.D.C.C. &#167;
+                                                                12.1-02-02(4), a lesser degree of culpability is
+                                                                satisfied if the proven degree of culpability is
+                                                                higher.<br /><br />The district court&#39;s failure to
+                                                                submit statutory definition of that term was not obvious
+                                                                error affecting defendant&#39;s substantial
+                                                                rights.<br /><br />It is not clearly established law in
+                                                                North Dakota that, where the State alleges multiple
+                                                                predicate felonies in a felony murder prosecution under
+                                                                N.D.C.C. &#167; 12.1-16-01(1)(c), the district court
+                                                                must include an instruction that the jury must
+                                                                unanimously agree on the predicate felony to convict the
+                                                                defendant of murder.<br />Not including separate verdict
+                                                                forms for each predicate felony was not obvious
+                                                                error.<br /><br />There was sufficient evidence to
+                                                                convict the defendant of murder.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Estate of Kish
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230275<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/26/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/157011','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A two-step analysis is
+                                                                required to determine whether an order is appealable.
+                                                                First, for this Court to have appellate jurisdiction,
+                                                                the order being appealed must meet statutory criteria
+                                                                for appealability. Second, for this Court to consider
+                                                                the appeal at this time, the requirements of
+                                                                N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must have been satisfied.
+                                                                <br />Decisions have stated that this Court lacks
+                                                                appellate jurisdiction when an appellant fails to obtain
+                                                                N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification when required, but
+                                                                dismissal under Rule 54(b) is not for lack of appellate
+                                                                jurisdiction.<br />The parties did not request Rule
+                                                                54(b) certification. The case is remanded under
+                                                                N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) so that the district court may
+                                                                determine in the first instance whether a Rule 54(b)
+                                                                certification is appropriate.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Vacancy in Judgeship No. 8, ECJD
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240055<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/23/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule<br />
+                                                                Author: Not Available<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156761','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Vacancy retained at Fargo
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Cichos, et al. v. Dakota Eye Institute, P.C., et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230212<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156565','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: Rule 54(b),
+                                                                N.D.R.Civ.P., preserves our long-standing policy against
+                                                                piecemeal appeals. When this Court considers the merits
+                                                                in a case involving a N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification,
+                                                                it does so because the resolution of the issue on appeal
+                                                                will always need to be resolved and is separate from the
+                                                                issue left to be adjudicated. <br />To establish a prima
+                                                                facie case of professional negligence, a plaintiff must
+                                                                produce expert evidence establishing the applicable
+                                                                standard of care, violation of that standard, and a
+                                                                causal relationship between the violation and the harm
+                                                                complained of. To warrant a finding that a person&#39;s
+                                                                conduct is the proximate cause of an injury, the injury
+                                                                must be the natural and probable result of the conduct
+                                                                and must have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by
+                                                                that person as a probable result of the conduct. Mere
+                                                                speculation is not enough.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Schmidt v. Hess Corp., et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230272<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156541','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: To prove
+                                                                negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of
+                                                                a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately
+                                                                caused by the breach of duty. <br /> The employer of an
+                                                                independent contractor who retains control of part of
+                                                                the work owes a duty of care to the independ ent
+                                                                contractor&#39; s employees to exercise the retained
+                                                                control with reasonable <br /> care.<br /> A property
+                                                                owner who hires an independent contractor may be held
+                                                                liable to the independent contractor and its employees
+                                                                for injuries resulting from hazards at the workplace
+                                                                when the property <br /> owner retains control over the
+                                                                work.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Fuglesten
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230299<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156540','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> A criminal judgment entered
+                                                                after a conditional plea is reversed and remanded to
+                                                                allow for withdrawal of the guilty plea because law
+                                                                enforcement illegally entered the home without exigent
+                                                                circumstances. If a misdemeanant is fleeing law
+                                                                enforcement, then exigent circumstances are required to
+                                                                permit law enforcement to enter the misdemeanant&#39;s
+                                                                home.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Rennie v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230303<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156532','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: A district
+                                                                court order denying a petition for postconviction relief
+                                                                is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Garaas, et al. v. Continental Resources, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230306<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156520','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> We will not consider an
+                                                                appeal in a multi-claim lawsuit where the district court
+                                                                order disposes of fewer than all the claims against all
+                                                                the parties unless the court has determined that a
+                                                                certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is appropriate.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Berdahl v. Berdahl
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230278<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/19/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156524','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: When this
+                                                                Court has made a legal pronouncement and remanded a case
+                                                                for further proceedings, the parties may not relitigate
+                                                                the issue and the district<br /> court is required to
+                                                                follow the terms of our decision. The district court has
+                                                                some discretion on the procedures used on remand.
+                                                                However, that discretion<br /> is not without bounds and
+                                                                must be exercised within the scope of our
+                                                                decision.<br /> Adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by
+                                                                themselves, demonstrate bias of a district court judge.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of H.J.J.N.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240060<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/156414','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                <strong>Highlight:</strong> Case Highlight: Litigants in
+                                                                civil nonjury cases have a right to have their attorneys
+                                                                make a final argument. A court errs by entering judgment
+                                                                prior to the closing of the briefing period.<br />In
+                                                                parental-termination cases, the court has discretion,
+                                                                which can be exercised only after considering the
+                                                                evidence and arguments.
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of S.S.C.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240053<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/125884','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of Y.R.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240063<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/125441','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Adoption of T.J.R. and B.L.R. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240056<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/114510','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of S.B.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240043<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/149299','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Thornton, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240017<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of
+                                                                Supervision<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/134286','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Hoever v. Wilder
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230295<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/3267','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Cote v. Cote
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230274<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/109451','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Whitetail Wave v. XTO Energy, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230283<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/54768','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Henke
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230302<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/53827','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Alameen
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230320<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/110400','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Urrabazo v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230316<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/76272','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Urrabazo v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230317<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/82575','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Nelson
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230346<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/124819','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Dahms v. Legacy Plumbing
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230349<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab.,
+                                                                Nuis.)<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/131183','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Freeman
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230207<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/128777','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of J.D. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240059<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/8493','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Kemmet v. Kemmet
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230194<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 4/4/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/115148','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Petro-Hunt v. Tank, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230015<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/74560','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Glaum
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230190<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/118064','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Driver
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230259<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/85620','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Happel v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230338<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/125750','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Adoption of R.E.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230321<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/18/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/48552','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Archambault v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230336<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/84856','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230280<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/104611','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, SCJD
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240006<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/300','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/
+                                                                20230378)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230377<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/125519','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Weber v. NDDOT
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230354<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/110774','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of A.P. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230404<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/52005','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of R.K. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240062<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/158','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Henderson
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230253<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/74850','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Wiese (consolidated w/20230221)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230220<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/154128','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Meuchel v. Red Trail Energy
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230127<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 3/7/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/54441','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Fischer
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230239<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/119822','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                NDIC v. Gould, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230188<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Foreclosure<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/46686','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Garaas, et al. v. Petro-Hunt
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230200<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/152710','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Disciplinary Board v. Pilch
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240023<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/111370','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Rinde
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230285<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/111040','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Disciplinary Board v. Spencer
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20240012<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/9/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/82332','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Mahad v. WSI, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230332<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers
+                                                                Compensation<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/133423','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Good Bear
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230193<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/80896','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                WSI v. Kringlie, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230184<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/129045','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Lyons v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230151<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/85291','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Pinks, et al. v. Kelsch, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230161<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/907','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Friends of the Rail Bridge, et al. v. N.D. Dep&#39;t of
+                                                                Water Resources, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230240<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/3914','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Landis v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230224<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/109657','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Sherwood v. Sherwood
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230230<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/52208','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Estate of Heath (consolidated w/20230251)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230250<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/112013','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Keller v. Keller, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230258<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contempt of Court<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/106171','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Don&#39;s Garden Center, et al. v. The Garden District,
+                                                                et al. (consol. w/20230271)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230270<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Landlord/Tenant<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/86470','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                LAWC Holdings v. Vincent Watford
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230087<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 2/8/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/129645','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Estate of Lindberg
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230102<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/111009','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Swanson v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230249<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/77902','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Plaisimond v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230252<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/130937','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Hoover v. NDDOT
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230226<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative
+                                                                Proceeding<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/113524','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Stancel v. Stancel, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230287<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/85428','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/
+                                                                20230378)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230377<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/125517','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of R.S. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230410<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/22/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/116847','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. A.J.H. (consolidated w/20230242)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230241<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/127572','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Williamson
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230205<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/126998','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Gonzalez
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230133<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense<br />
+                                                                Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/76624','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Gietzen
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230181<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/86590','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Yalartai v. Miller, et al.
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230159<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/155245','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Salou
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230196<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/150015','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Larson Latham Huettl v. Vetter
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230113<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 1/10/2024 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/40003','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Mead v. Hatzenbeller
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230185<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/106590','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Everett v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230192<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/75623','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Koon v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230139<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/133082','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Heywood v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230223<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/109701','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Gai
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230231<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/48715','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                State v. Nelson (consolidated w/20230235)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230234<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/51719','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Gaede v. State
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230269<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/115512','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Anderson v. Lamm
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230301<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/28/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/128308','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of J.M.M. (CONFIDENTIAL)
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230348<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/15/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental
+                                                                Rights<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/121275','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Mathisen, et al. v. Becker-Johner
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230263<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/15/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property<br />
+                                                                Author: Per Curiam, Per Curiam<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/114841','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Shift Services v. Ames Savage Water Solutions
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230217<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/15/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts<br />
+                                                                Author: Jensen, Jon J.<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/80480','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                            <tr>
+                                                <td>
+                                                    <div class="row">
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                            <p>
+                                                                Interest of Wedmore
+
+
+                                                                <br />
+                                                                Docket No.: 20230150<br />
+                                                                Filing Date: 12/15/2023 <br />
+                                                                Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually
+                                                                Dangerous Individual<br />
+                                                                Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
+                                                            <div>
+                                                                <button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md"
+                                                                    onclick="window.open('/supreme-court/opinions/127653','_blank')"><i
+                                                                        class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View
+                                                                    Opinion</button>
+                                                            </div>
+                                                            </p>
+                                                        </div>
+                                                        <div class="col-md-6">
+                                                        </div>
+                                                    </div>
+                                                </td>
+                                            </tr>
+                                        </table>
+                                        <div id="container" class="MVCPaging">
+                                            <div style="display:inline-block; vertical-align:middle;">
+                                                Page 1 of 111
+                                            </div>
+                                            <div style="display:inline-block; vertical-align:middle;">
+                                                <div class="pagination-container">
+                                                    <ul class="pagination">
+                                                        <li class="page-item disabled PagedList-skipToFirst"><a
+                                                                class="page-link">
+                                                                <<< /a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item disabled PagedList-skipToPrevious"><a
+                                                                class="page-link" rel="prev">
+                                                                << /a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item active"><span class="page-link">1</span>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=2&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">2</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=3&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">3</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=4&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">4</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=5&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">5</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=6&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">6</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=7&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">7</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=8&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">8</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=9&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">9</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=10&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">10</a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item PagedList-skipToNext"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=2&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1"
+                                                                rel="next">></a></li>
+                                                        <li class="page-item PagedList-skipToLast"><a class="page-link"
+                                                                href="/supreme-court/opinions?page=111&amp;pageSize=100&amp;sortBy=1">>></a>
+                                                        </li>
+                                                    </ul>
+                                                </div>
+
+                                            </div>
+                                        </div>
+                                    </div>
+                                </div>
 
-            </div>
 
+                                <script type="text/javascript">
+                                    $(document).ready(function () {
+                                        $('#trialJudge').val('');
+                                    });
+                                </script>
+                            </div>
+                        </div>
                     </div>
                 </div>
             </div>
-</li>
-<li class="dropdown nav-item last"><a class="dropdown-toggle nav-link" id="58973" data-toggle="dropdown" aria-haspopup="true" aria-expanded="false" href="/state-court-administration" role="button">Court Administration</a>
-            <div class="dropdown-menu mega-dropdown-menu" aria-labelledby="58973">
-                <div class="container-fluid">
-                    <div class="row">
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Departments</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration">State Court Administration</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/education">Education</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/family-law-mediation-program">Family Law Mediation Program</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/finance">Finance</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/guardian-monitoring-program">Guardian Monitoring Program</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/human-resources">Human Resources</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/information-technology">Information Technology</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-court">Juvenile Court</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/research-and-planning">Research and Planning</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Publications</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/news/north-dakota/departures-from-mandatory-minimums">Departures from Mandatory Minimums</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/state-court-administration/annual-report">Annual Report</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/other-courts/juvenile-court/annual-reports">Annual Report - Juvenile</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/news/north-dakota/supreme-court/state-of-the-judiciary">State of the Judiciary</a>
-
-            </div>
-
-            <div class="col-lg-3">
-                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Online Resources</a>
-                <hr />
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="https://www.governor.nd.gov/">Governor</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/">Legislature</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="http://www.sband.org/">State Bar Assoc. of N.D.</a>
-
-            <a class="nav-link" href="/meetings-and-events">Schedule of Meetings and Events</a>
-
-            </div>
+        </div>
 
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-</li>
-        </ul>
     </div>
-</nav>
-</article></div>
-                    </div>
-                    <div class="col-md-2 d-none d-lg-block d-xl-block">
-                        <div class="zone zone-side-bar-toggle">
-<article class="widget-side-bar-toggle widget-html-widget widget">
-    <p><button type="button" id="sidebarCollapse" class="btn btn-outline-light"> <i class="fas fa-align-left"></i> <span>How Do I</span> </button></p>
-</article></div>
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-            </div>
-    </div>
-
-
-
 
-        <div class="group row d-md-block d-lg-block d-xl-block d-none">
-            <div class="zone zone-featured">
-<article class="widget-featured widget-menu-widget widget">
-
-<div class="row">
-    <div class="col-md-10 offset-md-1 d-md-block d-lg-block d-xl-block d-none">
-        <nav aria-label="breadcrumb">
-            <ol class="breadcrumb">
-                        <li class="breadcrumb-item" aria-current="page"><a href="/">Home</a></li>
-                        <li class="breadcrumb-item" aria-current="page"><a href="/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a></li>
-                        <li class="breadcrumb-item" aria-current="page"><a href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions">Recent Opinions</a></li>
-            </ol>
-        </nav>
-    </div>
-</div>
-</article></div>
-        </div>
+</body>
 
-    <div>
-        <div class="group">
-            <div id="layout-content" class="group">
-                                                    <div class="container">
-                        <div class="zone zone-content">
-
-
-<style>
-    .pagination {
-        margin: 0;
-    }
-
-    .ul.pagination {
-        display: inline-block;
-        padding: 0;
-        margin: 0;
-    }
-
-    ul.pagination li {
-        display: inline;
-    }
-
-        ul.pagination li a {
-            color: black;
-            float: left;
-            padding: 8px 16px;
-            text-decoration: none;
-            transition: background-color .3s;
-        }
-
-            ul.pagination li a.active {
-                background-color: #4CAF50;
-                color: white;
-            }
-
-            ul.pagination li a:hover:not(.active) {
-                background-color: #ddd;
-            }
-
-    label {
-        font-weight: normal !important;
-    }
-</style>
-
-<script type="text/javascript">
-    $(document).ready(function () {
-        var pageSize = getUrlVars()["pageSize"];
-        var topic = getUrlVars()["topic"];
-        var author = getUrlVars()["author"];
-
-        if (pageSize == null)
-            $('#ddPageSize').val("10")
-        else
-            $('#ddPageSize').val(pageSize);
-
-        if (topic == null)
-            $('#ddTopic').val("");
-        else
-            $('#ddTopic').val(unescape(topic));
-
-        if (author == null)
-            $('#ddAuthor').val("");
-        else
-            $('#ddAuthor').val(unescape(author));
-    });
-
-    function FilterResults() {
-        var pageSize = $('#ddPageSize').val();
-        var topic = $('#ddTopic').val();
-        var author = ($('#ddAuthor').val() != null ? $('#ddAuthor').val() : '');
-        window.location.href = "?pageSize=" + pageSize + "&topic=" + topic + "&author=" + author;
-    }
-
-    function getUrlVars() {
-        var vars = [], hash;
-        var hashes = window.location.href.slice(window.location.href.indexOf('?') + 1).split('&');
-        for (var i = 0; i < hashes.length; i++) {
-            hash = hashes[i].split('=');
-            vars.push(hash[0]);
-            vars[hash[0]] = hash[1];
-        }
-        return vars;
-    }
-
-</script>
-
-<div class="row">
-    <div class="col-md-12">
-        <h1 class="page-title">Recent Opinions</h1>
-
-        <div class="row" style="margin-bottom: .5em;">
-            <div class="col-md-12">
-<form action="/NDCourtsDockets.Module/Opinions/RecentOpinions" class="form-inline" method="get">                    <div class="form-group">
-                        <label for="ddPageSize" class="my-1 mr-2 ml-2">Show </label>
-                        <select class="form-control" id="ddPageSize" name="ddPageSize"><option value="10">10</option>
-<option value="50">50</option>
-<option value="100">100</option>
-</select>
-                    </div>
-                    <div class="form-group">
-                        <label for="ddTopic" class="my-1 mr-2 ml-2">Topic </label>
-                        <select class="form-control" id="ddTopic" name="ddTopic"><option value="">Show All</option>
-<option value="ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING">ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING</option>
-<option value="ADOPTION">ADOPTION</option>
-<option value="ARSON">ARSON</option>
-<option value="ASSAULT">ASSAULT</option>
-<option value="BAR BOARD REVIEW">BAR BOARD REVIEW</option>
-<option value="CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW (Civil)">CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW (Civil)</option>
-<option value="CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)">CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)</option>
-<option value="CHILD SUPPORT">CHILD SUPPORT</option>
-<option value="CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR">CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR</option>
-<option value="COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE">COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE</option>
-<option value="CONSTITUTIONAL LAW">CONSTITUTIONAL LAW</option>
-<option value="CONTEMPT OF COURT (CIVIL)">CONTEMPT OF COURT (CIVIL)</option>
-<option value="CONTEMPT OF COURT (Crim.)">CONTEMPT OF COURT (Crim.)</option>
-<option value="CONTRACTS">CONTRACTS</option>
-<option value="CORPORATIONS">CORPORATIONS</option>
-<option value="COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW (Civil)">COURT OF APPEALS REVIEW (Civil)</option>
-<option value="DEBTOR/CREDITOR">DEBTOR/CREDITOR</option>
-<option value="DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil)">DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil)</option>
-<option value="DIVORCE">DIVORCE</option>
-<option value="DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY">DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY</option>
-<option value="DRUGS/CONTRABAND">DRUGS/CONTRABAND</option>
-<option value="DUI/DUS">DUI/DUS</option>
-<option value="ELECTION CONTEST">ELECTION CONTEST</option>
-<option value="EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE">EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE</option>
-<option value="FORECLOSURE">FORECLOSURE</option>
-<option value="GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR">GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR</option>
-<option value="HOMICIDE">HOMICIDE</option>
-<option value="INSURANCE">INSURANCE</option>
-<option value="JOB SERVICE">JOB SERVICE</option>
-<option value="JUVENILE LAW">JUVENILE LAW</option>
-<option value="JUVENILE LAW (Criminal)">JUVENILE LAW (Criminal)</option>
-<option value="LANDLORD/TENANT">LANDLORD/TENANT</option>
-<option value="MALPRACTICE">MALPRACTICE</option>
-<option value="MENTAL HEALTH">MENTAL HEALTH</option>
-<option value="MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)">MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)</option>
-<option value="MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)">MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)</option>
-<option value="MISC. TRAFFIC VIOLATION">MISC. TRAFFIC VIOLATION</option>
-<option value="OIL, GAS AND MINERALS">OIL, GAS AND MINERALS</option>
-<option value="OTHER (Civil)">OTHER (Civil)</option>
-<option value="OTHER (Crim.)">OTHER (Crim.)</option>
-<option value="PATERNITY">PATERNITY</option>
-<option value="PERSONAL INJURY">PERSONAL INJURY</option>
-<option value="POST-CONVICTION RELIEF">POST-CONVICTION RELIEF</option>
-<option value="PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS">PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS</option>
-<option value="REAL PROPERTY">REAL PROPERTY</option>
-<option value="SEXUAL OFFENSE">SEXUAL OFFENSE</option>
-<option value="TAX RELATED">TAX RELATED</option>
-<option value="TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS">TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS</option>
-<option value="THEFT">THEFT</option>
-<option value="TORTS (NEGLIGENCE, LIAB., NUIS.)">TORTS (NEGLIGENCE, LIAB., NUIS.)</option>
-<option value="TRANSPORTATION DEPT.">TRANSPORTATION DEPT.</option>
-<option value="VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE">VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE</option>
-<option value="WORKERS COMPENSATION">WORKERS COMPENSATION</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF CERTIORARI (Civil)">WRIT OF CERTIORARI (Civil)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF CERTIORARI (Crim.)">WRIT OF CERTIORARI (Crim.)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Civil)">WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Civil)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Crim.)">WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Crim.)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF MANDAMUS (Civil)">WRIT OF MANDAMUS (Civil)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF PROHIBITION (Civil)">WRIT OF PROHIBITION (Civil)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF PROHIBITION (Crim.)">WRIT OF PROHIBITION (Crim.)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF SUPERVISION (Civil)">WRIT OF SUPERVISION (Civil)</option>
-<option value="WRIT OF SUPERVISION (Crim.)">WRIT OF SUPERVISION (Crim.)</option>
-</select>
-                    </div>
-                    <div class="form-group">
-                        <label for="ddAuthor" class="my-1 mr-2 ml-2">Author </label>
-                        <select class="form-control" id="ddAuthor" name="ddAuthor"><option value="">Show All</option>
-<option value="Bakken, A. C.">Bakken, A. C.</option>
-<option value="Bakken, C.J.">Bakken, C.J.</option>
-<option value="Beede, William M.">Beede, William M.</option>
-<option value="Burdick, Eugene A.">Burdick, Eugene A.</option>
-<option value="Burke, John ">Burke, John </option>
-<option value="Burke, Thomas J.">Burke, Thomas J.</option>
-<option value="Christofferson, Lee A.">Christofferson, Lee A.</option>
-<option value="Court of Appeals">Court of Appeals</option>
-<option value="Coyne, Eugene F.">Coyne, Eugene F.</option>
-<option value="Crothers, Daniel John">Crothers, Daniel John</option>
-<option value="Eckert, Robert L.">Eckert, Robert L.</option>
-<option value="Englert, Hamilton E.">Englert, Hamilton E.</option>
-<option value="Erickson, Ralph Robert">Erickson, Ralph Robert</option>
-<option value="Erickstad, Ralph J.">Erickstad, Ralph J.</option>
-<option value="Fredricks, M. C.">Fredricks, M. C.</option>
-<option value="Friederich, Ray R.">Friederich, Ray R.</option>
-<option value="Gefreh, Adam">Gefreh, Adam</option>
-<option value="Gierke III, H F">Gierke III, H F</option>
-<option value="Gierke, H F">Gierke, H F</option>
-<option value="Giese, Emil A.">Giese, Emil A.</option>
-<option value="Glaser, Gerald G.">Glaser, Gerald G.</option>
-<option value="Hager, Harold M.">Hager, Harold M.</option>
-<option value="Hagerty, Gail H.">Hagerty, Gail H.</option>
-<option value="Hatch, Larry M.">Hatch, Larry M.</option>
-<option value="Heen, Douglas B.">Heen, Douglas B.</option>
-<option value="Hoberg, Gordon O.">Hoberg, Gordon O.</option>
-<option value="Hodny, William F.">Hodny, William F.</option>
-<option value="Ilvedson, Roy A.">Ilvedson, Roy A.</option>
-<option value="Jansonius, Clifford ">Jansonius, Clifford </option>
-<option value="Jensen, Jon J. ">Jensen, Jon J. </option>
-<option value="Johnson, J. Philip">Johnson, J. Philip</option>
-<option value="Jorgensen, Donald L.">Jorgensen, Donald L.</option>
-<option value="Kapsner, Carol Ronning">Kapsner, Carol Ronning</option>
-<option value="Kelsch, Clemens Frederick">Kelsch, Clemens Frederick</option>
-<option value="Kerian, Jon R.">Kerian, Jon R.</option>
-<option value="Knudson, Harvey B.">Knudson, Harvey B.</option>
-<option value="Leclerc, Lawrence A.">Leclerc, Lawrence A.</option>
-<option value="Levine, Beryl J.">Levine, Beryl J.</option>
-<option value="Louser, Stacy Joan">Louser, Stacy Joan</option>
-<option value="Lynch, Wilfred C.">Lynch, Wilfred C.</option>
-<option value="Maring, Mary Muehlen">Maring, Mary Muehlen</option>
-<option value="Marquart, Steven L.">Marquart, Steven L.</option>
-<option value="Maxwell, Ralph B.">Maxwell, Ralph B.</option>
-<option value="McEvers, Lisa K. Fair">McEvers, Lisa K. Fair</option>
-<option value="Medd, Joel D.">Medd, Joel D.</option>
-<option value="Meschke, Herbert L.">Meschke, Herbert L.</option>
-<option value="Morris, James">Morris, James</option>
-<option value="Muggli, Norbert J.">Muggli, Norbert J.</option>
-<option value="Murray, William S.">Murray, William S.</option>
-<option value="Neumann, William A.">Neumann, William A.</option>
-<option value="Not Available">Not Available</option>
-<option value="O&#39;Keefe, James H.">O&#39;Keefe, James H.</option>
-<option value="Olson, Everett Nels">Olson, Everett Nels</option>
-<option value="Paulson, John T.">Paulson, John T.</option>
-<option value="Paulson, Wm. L.">Paulson, Wm. L.</option>
-<option value="Pederson, Vernon R.">Pederson, Vernon R.</option>
-<option value="Per Curiam">Per Curiam</option>
-<option value="Sand, Paul M.">Sand, Paul M.</option>
-<option value="Sandstrom, Dale V.">Sandstrom, Dale V.</option>
-<option value="Schmalenberger, Allan L.">Schmalenberger, Allan L.</option>
-<option value="Schneller, Clifford ">Schneller, Clifford </option>
-<option value="Smith, Kirk">Smith, Kirk</option>
-<option value="Strutz, Alvin C.">Strutz, Alvin C.</option>
-<option value="Teigen, Obert C.">Teigen, Obert C.</option>
-<option value="Tufte, Jerod E.">Tufte, Jerod E.</option>
-<option value="VandeWalle, Gerald W.">VandeWalle, Gerald W.</option>
-<option value="Vogel, Robert">Vogel, Robert</option>
-</select>
-                    </div>
-                    <button type="button" onclick="FilterResults()" class="btn btn-primary ml-2">Go</button>
-</form>            </div>
-        </div>
-        <table class="table">
-
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180253">Robert Banderet,et al. vs. Sargent Count Water Resource District, et al.</a>        2019 ND 57<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180253<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/26/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND57','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	In general, when an appeal from a local governing body’s decision is authorized by law, equitable relief against the enforcement of the decision will not be allowed.<br />	An appeal of a local governing body’s decision must be taken within 30 days of the decision.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180232">Bindas v. Bindas</a>        2019 ND 56<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180232<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/25/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND56','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Section 14-05-24.1(3), N.D.C.C., which authorizes the district court to terminate spousal support when the spouse receiving support has been habitually cohabiting with another individual in a relationship analogous to a marriage for more than one year, does not apply when the parties have a contrary written agreement.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180083">Matter of Kulink</a>        2019 ND 55<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180083<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/25/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND55','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180236">Dick v. Erman</a>        2019 ND 54<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180236<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND54','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.<br /><br />Absent a reason for denying it, some form of extended visitation with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded.<br /><br />A district court’s ruling on decision-making responsibility is a finding of fact, reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180153">Lenertz v. City of Minot N.D.</a>        2019 ND 53<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180153<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND53','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	To establish an inverse condemnation claim, a property owner must prove a public entity took or damaged the owner’s property for a public use and the public use was the proximate cause of the taking or damages.<br />  <br />	Whether private property was taken for public use is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.<br /><br />	The district court has broad discretion determining whether to allow expert witness testimony, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it abused its discretion.  <br /><br />	The district court’s decision to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law is based on whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion.  Whether the evidence is sufficient to create a question of fact for the jury is a question of law.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180179">State v. Hansford</a>        2019 ND 52<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180179<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND52','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Whether a suspect is in custody is a mixed question of fact and law which is fully reviewable on appeal.<br /><br />A reasonable person would not believe he was in custody when he traveled unrestrained to the police station, was not placed under arrest or otherwise restrained, was told he was free to leave at any time, sat closest to the door during the interview, was interviewed in a room with only one law enforcement agent present, did not show any apprehension about being in the agent’s company, and told the agent he understood he was free to leave at any time.<br /><br />It is the State’s burden to prove the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession and to produce evidence on relevant factors.<br /><br />Even if a suspect is not in custody and Miranda warnings are given gratuitously, they are not rendered wholly irrelevant in determining whether incriminating statements were given voluntarily.<br /><br />Parties raising a constitutional claim must provide persuasive authority and a reasoned analysis to support the claim.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180226">State v. Powley</a>        2019 ND 51<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180226<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND51','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A pre-trial order in limine excluding evidence is a preliminary order that does not dispense with the need for the proponent to make an offer of proof at trial so the district court can consider the proffered evidence in the context of other evidence presented during trial.<br /><br />An appeal by the State of an order in limine excluding evidence is not statutorily authorized.<br /><br />The authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary and we decide whether to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.<br /><br />An appeal by the State of an order denying a motion to amend an information is not statutorily authorized.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180204">State v. Dowdy</a>        2019 ND 50<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180204<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND50','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	An arresting officer’s inclusion of additional information in the implied consent advisory must not materially mislead or coerce a defendant.<br />	Whether a defendant voluntarily consents to chemical testing must be determined by the totality of the circumstances.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180279">Varty v. Varty</a>        2019 ND 49<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180279<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND49','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Agreements between divorcing parties are encouraged, and stipulated spousal support awards should be changed only with great reluctance.<br />	The party seeking modification of spousal support must prove a material change in the financial circumstances of the parties warranting a change in support.<br />	The district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines in determining an award of spousal support.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180124">Smith v. Erickson</a>        2019 ND 48<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180124<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND48','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions and will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion occurs.<br /><br />	The lack of a trial transcript does not allow for meaningful and intelligent review of issues on appeal.<br /><br />	The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff a vexatious litigant when evidence supported finding litigant persistently and without reasonable grounds filed motions and requests not warranted under existing law.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180188">Gonzalez v. State</a>        2019 ND 47<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180188<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND47','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> When an applicant for post-conviction relief alleges newly discovered evidence, a district court errs in sua sponte summarily denying the application, after the State has responded to the application, without providing the applicant notice and the opportunity to submit an answer with supporting materials to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.<br /><br />A district court’s error in sua sponte summarily denying an application for post-conviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence after response by the State does not prejudice the applicant if the district court later considers and correctly rules on the merits in the applicant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180135">Kuntz v. State</a>        2019 ND 46<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180135<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND46','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A district court’s decision granting judgment on the pleadings under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(c) is reviewed de novo.<br /><br />	A public entity violates the open records law when a person’s right to review or receive a copy of a record that is not exempt or confidential is denied or unreasonably delayed or when an excessive fee is charged.<br /><br />	A civil action for a violation of the open records law may be filed after an unreasonably delayed disclosure if a person alleges prejudice or harm caused by the delay.<br /><br />	An affidavit of service by mail filed with the court establishes service of the referenced documents.  Service of an unsigned copy of the affidavit does not vitiate the evidence of service presented to the court by filing the signed affidavit.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180250">Heidt v. Heidt</a>        2019 ND 45<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180250<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND45','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> District court erred in finding mother had not made a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180127">State v. Abuhamda</a>        2019 ND 44<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180127<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND44','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> The right to appeal in this state is purely statutory, and without statutory authorization to hear an appeal this Court lacks jurisdiction.<br /><br />An order approving pretrial diversion is not appealable under statutory authority contained in N.D.C.C. 29-28-06.<br /><br />Supervisory writs may be issued in extraordinary cases to prevent injustice when no adequate alternative remedies exist.<br /><br />While it is true N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) does not require ritualistic compliance to enter a conditional guilty plea, courts must substantially comply with the rule’s procedural requirements to ensure defendants enter the plea voluntarily and intelligently.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180142">State v. Vetter</a>        2019 ND 43<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180142<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND43','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	The statutory implied consent advisory must be read after a person is placed under arrest and before a chemical test may be administered to determine alcohol concentration.<br /><br />	The totality of the circumstances must be considered to determine whether a person voluntarily consented to submit to a blood test to determine blood-alcohol concentration.<br /><br />	An accurate reading of the implied consent advisory does not constitute per se coercion.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180237">Estate of Krueger</a>        2019 ND 42<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180237<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND42','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	For purposes of Medicaid recovery from a surviving spouse’s estate, the Department’s recovery from a deceased recipient’s joint tenancy property is limited to the deceased recipient’s fractional interest in the property.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180024">Schindler, et al. v. Wageman, et al.</a>        2019 ND 41<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180024<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND41','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Party was required to provide clear and convincing evidence that warranty deeds did not correctly state the parties’ intent.<br /><br />Consent to try an issue outside the pleadings cannot be implied from evidence which is relevant to the pleadings but which also bears on an unpled issue.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180286"> State v. Christie</a>        2019 ND 40<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180286<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND40','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Conviction of class AA felony gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180299">Heldstab v. Heldstab</a>        2019 ND 39<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180299<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND39','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A district court’s divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180229">State v. Cody</a>        2019 ND 38<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180229<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND38','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Jury verdict finding defendant guilty of willfully giving false information to a law enforcement officer under N.D.C.C. &#167; 12.1-11-03(1) and preventing arrest under N.D.C.C. &#167; 12.1-08-02(1) is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180344">Hagen v. Horst</a>        2019 ND 37<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180344<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND37','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A district court’s award of residential responsibility and child support, the implementation of supervised parenting time, and decision to issue an emergency ex parte custody order are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a) (2), (3) and(4).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180265">State v. Goldsack </a>        2019 ND 36<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180265<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND36','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Judgment revoking probation and sentencing defendant to six years’ imprisonment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180439">Interest of H.B.  </a>        2019 ND 35<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180439<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND35','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A juvenile court order terminating parental rights to H.B., V.B, and A.B. is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180275">State v. Brakke</a>        2019 ND 34<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180275<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND34','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A criminal judgment for driving with a suspended license is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180276">Smith v. State</a>        2019 ND 33<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180276<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 2/21/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND33','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180310">Tollefson v. Anderson &amp; Fercho, PLLP, et al.</a>        2019 ND 32<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180310<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/31/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND32','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Appellant’s appeal of the district court’s order granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), (7).<br /><br />This Court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney fees, if it determines an appeal is frivolous.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180048">Wald v. Benedictine Living Communities, Inc.</a>        2019 ND 31<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180048<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/25/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE DISPUTE<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND31','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law is a renewal of the pre-verdict motion and can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion.<br /><br />A jury verdict may not be based upon speculation of conjecture.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180094">Friesner v. Friesner, et al.</a>        2019 ND 30<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180094<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/22/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND30','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A district court’s choice for primary residential responsibility between two fit parents is a difficult one, and the Supreme Court will not retry the case or substitute its judgment for that of the district court when its decision is supported by the evidence.<br /><br />	Permanent spousal support may be appropriate when there is a substantial income disparity between the spouses that cannot be remedied by property division or rehabilitative spousal support.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180258">State v. Bearrunner</a>        2019 ND 29<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180258<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/22/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND29','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Whether a fence is so enclosed as manifestly to exclude intruders is a finding of fact.<br /><br />Appellant’s conduct did not rise to the level of “tumultuous and violent” as required under N.D.C.C. &#167; 12.1-25-01.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180167">State v. Strom</a>        2019 ND 9<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180167<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND9','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	When ordering restitution for a victim of a criminal act, district courts must not consider the defendant’s ability to pay under N.D.C.C. &#167; 12.1-32-08(1). North Dakota Constitution article I, &#167; 25(1)(n) requires “full” restitution be awarded to the victim for “all losses” sustained. This amendment to the constitution implicitly repealed the statutory requirement to consider ability to pay.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180413">Interest of D.M.W. </a>        2019 ND 8<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180413<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND8','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180186">State, et al. v. McGath</a>        2019 ND 7<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180186<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND7','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> An appeal from a divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under Koenig v. Schuh, 2016 ND 252, 888 N.W.2d 385, and N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180223">State v. Simundson</a>        2019 ND 6<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180223<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND6','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Summary affirmance of jury conviction for actual physical control under N.D.C.C. &#167; 39-08-01.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180248">Lunde v. Paulson</a>        2019 ND 5<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180248<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: PERSONAL INJURY<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND5','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Summarily affirm default judgment based on a lack of errors appearing on the face of the judgment roll.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180230">Schwab v. State</a>        2019 ND 4<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180230<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND4','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> An appeal from a district court’s order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).<br /><br />If it is easier to dispose of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, that course should be followed.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180192">Interest of P.T.D.  </a>        2019 ND 3<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180192<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: JUVENILE LAW<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND3','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> An appeal from a juvenile court order finding five children to be deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180098">State v. Foster</a>        2019 ND 28<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180098<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND28','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A witness may testify from personal knowledge about the witness’s own actions and observations even when they relate to acts technical in nature.  If evidence is admitted in error, this Court will consider the entire record and decide in light of all the evidence whether the error was so prejudicial the defendant’s rights were affected and a different decision would have occurred absent the error.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180095">Helbling v. Helbling</a>        2019 ND 27<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180095<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND27','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> When a divorce settlement agreement is incorporated and merged into a judgment, only the final judgment is interpreted and enforced, not the underlying contract between the parties.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180283">Western Energy Corporation v. Stauffer, et al.</a>        2019 ND 26<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180283<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OIL, GAS AND MINERALS<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND26','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> District court judgment finding reformation of 1959 warranty deed barred by the ten-year statute of limitation under N.D.C.C. &#167; 28-01-15(2) is affirmed.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180158">Swanson v. Swanson</a>        2019 ND 25<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180158<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND25','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> District court division of marital property was not clearly erroneous.<br /><br />While long-term marriages generally support an equal distribution of the marital property, a court does not err by considering how the property was acquired and acting to preserve the viability of a business operation like a family farm by awarding a majority of the marital property, and its corresponding debt, to one party.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180284">Grina v. Job Service, et al.</a>        2019 ND 24<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180284<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: JOB SERVICE<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND24','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A Job Service decision is affirmed when a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the agency’s factual conclusions were proved by the weight of evidence.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180409">Interest of Jane Doe </a>        2019 ND 23<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180409<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MENTAL HEALTH<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND23','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.<br /><br />In determining whether an individual is a person requiring treatment a district court must consider whether the individual is mentally ill, and whether there is a reasonable expectation that, if the individual is not hospitalized, there exists a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170279">State v. Pittenger</a>        2019 ND 22<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170279<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND22','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Closing a trial to the public without proper analysis is a structural error requiring automatic reversal.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180130">State v. Lyon</a>        2019 ND 21<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180130<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: HOMICIDE<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND21','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A sentence in excess of a statutory provision or in some other way contrary to an applicable statute is an illegal sentence.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180111">Avila v. Weaver, et al.</a>        2019 ND 20<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180111<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CONTRACTS<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND20','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> If a post-trial motion does not require the amendment of the judgment, N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3) applies and the time for appeal begins upon service of the notice of the order disposing of the motion.  <br /><br />Where the order disposing of the motion necessitates the entry of an amended judgment, N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) applies and the time for appeal begins upon the service of the notice of the entry of the amended judgment. <br /><br />An initial judgment did not foreclose on an award of attorney fees under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(3).<br /><br />This Court does not consider questions that were not presented to the district court and that are raised for the first time on appeal.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180198">DeLong v. Shields, et al.</a>        2019 ND 2<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180198<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND2','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s award of unsupervised parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180112">Desert Partners IV, L.P., et al. v. Benson, et al.</a>        2019 ND 19<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180112<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OIL, GAS AND MINERALS<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND19','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A district court’s decision on whether to grant a motion for a continuance will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.<br />	Whether or not a party was a good-faith purchaser without notice of a competing interest is a mixed question of fact and law.  <br />	A good-faith purchaser is one who acquires rights without actual or constructive notice of another’s rights.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180154">State v. Lott</a>        2019 ND 18<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180154<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND18','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Criminal judgment of preventing arrest is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).<br /><br />N.D.R.Crim.P. 32., mandates a defendant be given an opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing. <br /><br />An individual who has been denied the right of allocution has generally met the burden of showing their substantial rights were affected.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180143">Hogen, et al. v. Hogen, et al.</a>        2019 ND 17<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180143<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND17','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A transferor cannot convey an interest greater than the transferor has in the property, and a transferor who does not hold title to property cannot pass or transfer title to that property.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180075">S.E.L. v. J.A.P., et al. </a>        2019 ND 16<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180075<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: PATERNITY<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND16','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Section 14-20-44(2), N.D.C.C., provides a statute of limitations barring proceedings to challenge an acknowledged father’s paternity and to adjudicate paternity brought more than two years after the effective date of the paternity acknowledgment.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180157">Kieson v. Kieson</a>        2019 ND 15<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180157<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND15','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A marital property distribution in a divorce case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180120">Cody v. Cody</a>        2019 ND 14<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180120<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND14','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	The district court has broad discretion in deciding evidentiary matters, including whether to admit telephonic testimony.<br />	Interlocutory orders generally are not appealable and may be revised or reconsidered any time before the final order or judgment is entered.<br />	Claims for ineffective assistance of counsel have not been extended to civil actions for divorce.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180069">Seccombe, et al. v. Rohde, et al.</a>        2019 ND 13<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180069<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND13','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A county court acquired jurisdiction over property when executor of estate filed a petition to sell the property and the petition substantially complied with statutory requirements.<br />	When the sale of property by an executor or administrator of an estate is required to be confirmed by the court under statute, the order confirming the sale cures all nonjurisdictional errors and irregularities occurring after the court obtains jurisdiction.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180426">Interest of E.S. </a>        2019 ND 12<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180426<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MENTAL HEALTH<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND12','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s finding respondent is mentally ill and requires treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.<br /><br />To show a respondent is a person requiring treatment, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill and there is a reasonable risk that, if the person is not treated, he poses a serious risk of harm to himself, others, or property.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180156">State v. Christensen</a>        2019 ND 11<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180156<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND11','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Appellate review of a criminal sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the sentencing limits prescribed by statute, or substantially relied upon an impermissible factor.<br />	<br />The presumptive probation statute requires a sentence of probation unless an exception applies.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180087">Ourada v. State</a>        2019 ND 10<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180087<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/15/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND10','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> In a post-conviction relief proceeding, an applicant is entitled to notice that his application may be summarily dismissed.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20160436">Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services</a>        2019 ND 1<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20160436<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 1/9/2019 <br />
-                                    Case Type: <br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND1','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170413">Berg v. North Dakota State Board of Registration </a>        2018 ND 274<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170413<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/11/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND274','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	In reviewing an administrative agency’s findings of fact, the Supreme Court does not make independent findings of fact or substitute its judgment for that of the agency.<br />	In an administrative proceeding, the administrative agency resolves conflicts of evidence and weighs the credibility of witnesses.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180083">Matter of Kulink</a>        2018 ND 260<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180083<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND260','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180116">Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor &amp; Home, Inc., et al.</a>        2018 ND 273<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180116<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CONTRACTS<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND273','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor.<br /><br />North Dakota law recognizes an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in construction contracts.<br /><br />A contracting party cannot escape its liability on the contract by merely assigning its duties and rights under the contract to a third party.<br /><br />The remedy for fraud is rescission of the contract and requires returning the parties back to their original positions.<br /><br />Deceit is not an action dependent on a contract; it is a tort cause of action, and allows recovery of damages upon proof of an affirmative misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. <br /><br />When a party requests leave to amend without requesting additional discovery and a summary judgment motion has been docketed, the proposed amendment must be both theoretically viable and solidly grounded in the record.<br /><br />The measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount which will compensate the injured person for the loss which fulfillment of the contract would have prevented or the breach of the contract now requires.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180227">City of Grand Forks v. Barendt</a>        2018 ND 272<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180227<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND272','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> The implied consent advisory under N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(3) must be read after placing an individual under arrest and before administering a chemical test to determine alcohol concentration or the presence of other drugs.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180065">Dale Exploration, LLC, et al. v. Hiepler, et al.</a>        2018 ND 271<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180065<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: REAL PROPERTY<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND271','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> The settlor of an irrevocable trust with the power to remove trust property must convey mineral interests that he sold in an individual capacity while the property was titled under the trust. <br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180203">Lechner v. WSI, et al.</a>        2018 ND 270<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180203<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: WORKERS COMPENSATION<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND270','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A claim for workers’ compensation benefits must be filed within one year after the injury.<br />	The date of injury for purposes of determining whether a claim for benefits is timely filed is the first date a reasonable lay person, not learned in medicine, knew or should have known that he suffered a compensable work-related injury and has either lost wages or received medical treatment.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180161">State v. Vollrath</a>        2018 ND 269<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180161<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND269','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Once a judgment is final, a district court generally no longer has jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify that judgment.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180080">Rustad v. Baumgartner</a>        2018 ND 268<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180080<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND268','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	A parenting plan is clearly erroneous when it denies a parent overnights or extended summer visitation without evidence of endangerment to the child’s physical or emotional health.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180074">State ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber</a>        2018 ND 267<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180074<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND267','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), a district court cannot amend an order to impose further affirmative relief.  If an amendment grants no further relief but merely more clearly articulates the same substantive relief, it may be made under Rule 60(a) at any time.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180020">State v. White</a>        2018 ND 266<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180020<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND266','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> The warrantless search of supervised probationer’s home is reasonable under totality of the circumstances and does not violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180326">Adoption of A.S. </a>        2018 ND 265<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180326<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
-                                    Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND265','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court&#39;s findings of fact in a termination of parental rights proceeding will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.<br /><br />A finding on one of three alternative grounds authorizing termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. 14-15-19(3) is sufficient to uphold a district court&#39;s order terminating parental rights on that ground.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180128">Stein v. State</a>        2018 ND 264<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180128<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND264','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.<br /><br />Ineffective assistance of counsel issues are mixed questions of law and fact, which are fully reviewable on appeal. <br /><br />When a claim made in an application for post-conviction relief is clearly and unambiguously contradicted by the record, summary disposition is appropriate.<br /><br />When determining if summary disposition is appropriate on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record and transcripts are generally not adequate if the petitioner alleges incidents outside of the record.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180202">Dahms, et al. v. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co., et al.</a>        2018 ND 263<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180202<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: INSURANCE<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND263','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A detached garage connected to a dwelling by a deck constituted an “other structure” rather than a “dwelling” for purposes of determining insurance coverage.<br /><br />Summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to establish the existence of a factual dispute as to an essential element of his claim and on which he will bear the burden of proof at trial.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180141">State, et al. v. Martin</a>        2018 ND 262<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180141<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND262','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> District court did not err in denying a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment where party was properly provided notice and served with the motion for default judgment.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180146">Hunts Along v. N.D. Dep&#39;t of Transportation</a>        2018 ND 261<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180146<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TRANSPORTATION DEPT.<br />
-                                    Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND261','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Department did not err in revoking defendant’s drivers license under N.D.C.C. &#167; 39-20-14 following defendant’s refusal of on-site breath test. <br /><br />A party who refuses a screening or chemical test cannot challenge the unperformed tests’ compliance with statutory requirements. <br /><br />We cannot logically construe the statutes to require the State to provide foundational evidence for a test which was refuse, thus making the foundational evidence irrelevant.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180097">Schultz v. Schultz</a>        2018 ND 259<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180097<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND259','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> There is no bright-line rule to distinguish between short and long-term marriages. <br /><br />This Court will not reverse a district court’s findings on valuation of marital property unless they are clearly erroneous.<br /><br />When a distribution of property includes periodic cash payments from one spouse to another, a district court has broad authority to provide for the payment of interest in order to achieve an equitable distribution of the property.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180114">Green v. Swiers</a>        2018 ND 258<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180114<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND258','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s decision on a motion to relocate is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.<br /><br />To modify parenting time, the movant must establish a material change of circumstances has occurred since the prior visitation order and that it is in the best interests of the child to modify the order. <br /><br />A material change in circumstances sufficient to amend a parenting time order is similar to, but distinct from, a material change in circumstances sufficient to change primary residential responsibility. <br /><br />A district court’s decision to modify parenting time is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180341">Interest of A.L.E. </a>        2018 ND 257<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180341<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND257','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Prenatal exposure to any controlled substance is a ground for a finding of deprivation.<br /><br />	A parent’s past conduct can form the basis to predict future behavior and a parent’s lack of cooperation with social service agencies is evidence that the causes and conditions of deprivation will likely continue.<br /><br />	When a parent, through voluntary actions, without reasonable justification, makes herself unavailable to care for and parent a young child, the child should not be expected to wait or assume the risk involved in waiting for permanency and stability in her life.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180093">State v. Bornsen</a>        2018 ND 256<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180093<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: DUI/DUS<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND256','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Investigatory traffic stops are valid when the officer conducting the stop had a reasonable and articulable suspicion the motorist has violated or is violating the law.<br /><br />Traffic violations, even if considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct which provide officers with requisite suspicion for conducting investigatory stops.<br /><br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180155">LeClair v. Sorel</a>        2018 ND 255<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180155<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TRANSPORTATION DEPT.<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND255','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	The implied consent advisory provided to a driver after an arrest for driving under the influence must be substantively complete.<br />	The entire substance of the advisory was conveyed despite the officer’s omission of the word “punishable” from the statutory language in N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(3)(a).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180072">State v. Ferderer</a>        2018 ND 254<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180072<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND254','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A revocation of a sentence for a probation violation does not violate double jeopardy.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180164">Tornabeni v. Wold, et al.</a>        2018 ND 253<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180164<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Jensen, Jon J. <br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND253','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	The existence and terms of an oral contract are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous rule.<br />	A district court’s determination of whether the facts support a finding of unjust enrichment is fully reviewable on appeal.<br />	An award of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.<br />	Issues not raised in the district court are waived.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180171">State v. Hebert</a>        2018 ND 252<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180171<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND252','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A criminal judgment convicting the defendant of tampering or damaging a public service is summarily reversed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180191">Sabot v. State</a>        2018 ND 251<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180191<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND251','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Summary dismissal of post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180166">Interest of D.V.A.  </a>        2018 ND 250<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180166<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CIVIL COMMIT OF SEXUAL PREDATOR<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND250','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180178">State v. Mejia</a>        2018 ND 249<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180178<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: ASSAULT<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND249','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Summary affirmance is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.<br /><br />In a case tried without a jury, the court need only find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180071">Sorlie v. Sorlie</a>        2018 ND 248<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180071<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 12/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND248','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court’s award of residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180029">Johnston Law Office, P.C. v. Brakke, et al.</a>        2018 ND 247<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180029<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/19/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND247','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	If a party moving for summary judgment meets its initial burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the party opposing the motion must present competent admissible evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20160436">Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services</a>        2019 ND 1<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20160436<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/15/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: <br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2019ND1','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Order on petition for temporary lawyer practice.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170127">Thompson, et al. v. Molde, et al.</a>        2018 ND 245<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170127<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/13/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TAX RELATED<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND245','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Summary judgment allows for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits without a trial if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.<br />	<br />	The Supreme Court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees for a frivolous appeal.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170389">State v. Rogers</a>        2018 ND 244<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170389<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND244','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Defendant appeals from a district court judgment for gross sexual imposition. Because the district court did not make individualized findings supporting closure of the competency hearing under Waller, the Sixth Amendment public trial guarantee wasviolated. The restitution award was proper and it is affirmed consistent with our remand. We remand for further proceedings.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180119">Upton v. Nolan</a>        2018 ND 243<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180119<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CHILD CUST &amp; SUPPORT (Div.\Other)<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND243','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Although a district court has continuing jurisdiction to modify parenting time, due process requires a parent receive adequate notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.<br /><br />	Due process notice requirements are satisfied when an unpled issue is tried by the implied consent of the parties.<br /><br />	Consent to try an issue outside the pleadings cannot be implied from evidence which is relevant to the pleadings but which also bears on an unpleaded issue.<br /><br />	A district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions and in awarding attorney fees as reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180063">State v. Sanchez </a>        2018 ND 242<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180063<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: THEFT<br />
-                                    Author: Tufte, Jerod E.<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND242','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court may extend on its own a self-imposed deadline for scheduling or holding a restitution hearing.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180047">State v. Jessee</a>        2018 ND 241<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180047<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Crothers, Daniel John<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND241','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	Questions of fact in a criminal bench trial are reviewed in the same manner as questions of fact in a criminal jury trial.<br /><br />	Tampering with a public service requires an alteration or harmful change towards property under the control of the public service.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170421">State v. Etemad</a>        2018 ND 240<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170421<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND240','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court judgment entered after a jury found Etemad guilty of terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).<br /><br />Under an obvious error analysis, in order to find a violation affects substantial rights a moving party must demonstrate the violation significantly prejudiced him.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180126">Pederson v. State</a>        2018 ND 239<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180126<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND239','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Judgment denying motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) and application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180019">Marler v. Martin, et al.</a>        2018 ND 238<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180019<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: CONTRACTS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND238','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20170424">City of Fargo v. Nelson</a>        2018 ND 237<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20170424<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND237','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Civil judgment finding appellant&#39;s property constitutes a public nuisance, requiring abatement of the nuisance, and granting a permanent injunction from maintaining a nuisance on the property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4),(7).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180332">Interest of G.F. </a>        2018 ND 236<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180332<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND236','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> Juvenile court order terminating parental rights under N.D.C.C.  27-20-44(1)(c)(1) and N.D.C.C.  27-20-44(1)(c)(2) is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180058">Guardianship/Conservatorship of M.J.K.</a>        2018 ND 235<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180058<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND235','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> 	District Court’s finding that the ward fails to make a prima facie case to terminate guardianship is summarily affirmed under N.D.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).<br /><br />	Constitutional issues not pursued in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.<br />
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180159">McGath v. Waide</a>        2018 ND 234<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180159<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: OTHER (Civil)<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND234','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> A district court disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180149">Prairie Winds Apartments 1, LLC v. Stark County Board of Commissioners (cons</a>        2018 ND 233<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180149<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 11/6/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING<br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND233','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                    <p>
-                                        <strong>Highlight:</strong> To properly appeal a board of county commissioners’ decision relating to tax matters, a landowner must file a notice of appeal on a board member and the state tax commissioner within thirty days of the board’s decision.
-                                    </p>
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-                <tr>
-                    <td>
-                        <div class="row">
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                                <p>
-                                    <a href="/supreme-court/Dockets/20180334">Vacancy in Judgeship No. 2, East Central Judicial District</a>        2018 ND 232<br />
-                                    Docket No.: 20180334<br />
-                                        Filing Date: 10/18/2018 <br />
-                                    Case Type: <br />
-                                    Author: Per Curiam<br />
-                                        <div><button type="button" class="btn btn-primary btn-md" onclick="window.open('http://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinion/2018ND232','_blank')"><i class="fas fa-book-reader"></i> View Opinion</button></div>
-                                </p>
-                            </div>
-                            <div class="col-md-6">
-                            </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </td>
-                </tr>
-        </table>
-        <div id="container">
-            <div style="display:inline-block; vertical-align:middle;">
-                Page 1 of 120
-            </div>
-            <div style="display:inline-block; vertical-align:middle;">
-                <div class="pagination-container"><ul class="pagination"><li class="page-item disabled PagedList-skipToFirst"><a class="page-link"><<</a></li><li class="page-item disabled PagedList-skipToPrevious"><a class="page-link" rel="prev"><</a></li><li class="page-item active"><span class="page-link">1</span></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=2">2</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=3">3</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=4">4</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=5">5</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=6">6</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=7">7</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=8">8</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=9">9</a></li><li class="page-item"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=10">10</a></li><li class="page-item PagedList-skipToNext"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=2" rel="next">></a></li><li class="page-item PagedList-skipToLast"><a class="page-link" href="/supreme-court/recent-opinions?page=120">>></a></li></ul></div>
-            </div>
-        </div>
-    </div>
-</div></div>
-                    </div>
-                            </div>
-        </div>
-    </div>
-        <div id="layout-footer-wrapper">
-        <div id="layout-footer" class="group">
-            <footer>
-                <div class="row">
-                    <div class="zone col-md-2">
-
-                        <img id="logo-footer" class="logo hidden-xs hidden-sm responsive float-lg-right float-xl-right" src="/Themes/NDCourts/Content/statecourts_logo_blue.png" />
-
-                    </div>
-                    <div class="col-md-10">
-                        <div class="row">
-                                <div class="col-sm-6 col-md-3">
-                                    <div class="zone zone-footer-quad-first">
-<article class="widget-footer-quad-first widget-html-widget widget">
-    <header>
-        <h1>North Dakota Supreme Court</h1>
-
-    </header>
-    <p><span>600 E Boulevard Ave</span><br shape-id="232" /><span>Bismarck, ND 58505-0530</span><br shape-id="232" /><a href="mailto:info@ndcourts.gov">info@ndcourts.gov</a></p>
-</article></div>
-                                </div>
-                                                            <div class="col-sm-6 col-md-3">
-                                    <div class="zone zone-footer-quad-second">
-<article class="widget-footer-quad-second widget-text-widget widget">
-    <header>
-        <h1>Office of the Clerk</h1>
-
-    </header>
-
-<div>Phone: (701) 328-2221</div>
-
-</article></div>
-                                </div>
-                                                            <div class="col-sm-6 col-md-3">
-                                    <div class="zone zone-footer-quad-third">
-<article class="widget-footer-quad-third widget-text-widget widget">
-    <header>
-        <h1>Court Administration</h1>
-
-    </header>
-
-<div>Phone: (701) 328-4216</div>
-
-</article></div>
-                                </div>
-                                                            <div class="col-sm-6 col-md-3">
-                                    <div class="zone zone-footer-quad-fourth">
-<article class="widget-footer-quad-fourth widget-html-widget widget">
-    <h1><a href="/about-us">About Us</a></h1>
-<h1><a href="/contact-us">Contact Us</a></h1>
-<h1><a href="/state-court-administration/human-resources/career-opportunities">Careers</a></h1>
-<h1><a href="/privacy-statement">Privacy Statement</a></h1>
-<h1><a href="/security-policy">Security Policy</a></h1>
-<h1><a href="/disclaimer">Disclaimer</a></h1>
-</article></div>
-                                </div>
-                        </div>
-                    </div>
-                </div>
-
-
-            </footer>
-        </div>
-    </div>
-</div>
-
-</div>
-<script src="/Themes/NDCourts/scripts/scripts.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
-<script src="/Themes/NDCourts/scripts/jquery.mCustomScrollbar.concat.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
-
-</body>
-</html>
+</html>
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py b/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
index 961f7f76e..cadb13e7c 100644
--- a/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
+++ b/tests/local/test_ScraperExtractFromTextTest.py
@@ -483,6 +483,20 @@ class ScraperExtractFromText(unittest.TestCase):
                 },
             ),
         ],
+        "juriscraper.opinions.united_states.state.nd": [
+            (
+                # https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/118403
+                """IN THE SUPREME COURTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA\\n2023 ND 157\\nIn the Interest of A.B., a child\\nLeslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass\\nCounty Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee\\nv.\\nA.B., a child, Respondent\\nand\\nJ.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant\\nNo. 20230197\\nIn the Interest of A.C., minor child""",
+                {
+                    "Citation": {
+                        "volume": "2023",
+                        "reporter": "ND",
+                        "page": "157",
+                        "type": 8,
+                    },
+                },
+            )
+        ],
     }
 
     def test_extract_from_text(self):