Cases

615 N.W.2d 542 (2000) 2000 ND 159 CITY OF FARGO, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Duane Eddie EGEBERG, Defendant and Appellant. No. 20000027. Supreme Court of North Dakota. August 18, 2000. Rehearing Denied September 18, 2000. *543 Timothy Michael O'Keeffe, City Prosecutor, Fargo, N.D., for plai

KAPSNER, Justice. [¶ 1] Patrick Salter appeals from his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicating liquor in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01, entered upon a conditional plea of guilty after the district court denied his motion to suppress. Salter argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he did not voluntarily consent to blood-alcohol testing. We affirm, concluding Salter’s

SANDSTROM, Justice. [¶ 1] Ray Huether appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. We hold the district court’s denial of Huether’s motion to suppress is supported by sufficient competent evidence and is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We also conclude the court did not rely upon an impermissible factor in sentencing Huether. We affirm.

*403MARING, Justice. [¶ 1] Richard Whitman appeals the trial court’s judgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Whitman argues the district court erred in allowing into evidence statements made to law enforcement in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and th

Filed 12/2/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2010 ND 233 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Ray Leon Huether, Defendant and App

BELL, C.J. (retired). In 1968, this Court was presented with the question of whether, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Maryland Code (1957, 1967 Cum. Supp.), Art. 101, the predecessor of The Workers’ Compensation Act, Maryland Code (1991, 2008 Repl. Vol.) Title 9 of the Labor and Employment Article (L & E), “an award of disability under [§] 36(4), concerning other cases, may be combined with an award under [§] 36(3), co

MEMORANDUM & ORDER DEBORAH A. BATTS, District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant NYU Hospitals Center (“NYU”) appeals from the Order and Judgment of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 23, 2011 ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC (“HRH”) and Curtis Partition Corporation (“Curtis”). For the reasons stated below, the Order of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.

*5Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. California is one of at least nine States that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.1 The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for

Filed 3/12/02 by Clerk of Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2002 ND 44 Cody Darrell Henderson, Petitioner and Appellee v. Director, North Dakota

665 N.W.2d 45 (2003) 2003 ND 113 Robert Shawn RIST, Petitioner and Appellee, v. NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent and Appellant. No. 20020303. Supreme Court of North Dakota. July 16, 2003. *46 Chad C. Nodland, Chad C. Nodland, P.C., Bismarck, ND, for petitioner and appellee. Reid

540 N.W.2d 605 (1995) Arnold SCHMIDT, Personal Representative of the Estate of Odelia Schmidt, deceased, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Gerald D. SCHMIDT, Defendant and Appellant, and Trudie Heaton, formerly Trudie Kay Schmidt, United States of America, acting through the Farmers Home Administration, and Dale E. Walsh, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert D. Walsh, deceased, Defendants. Civ. No. 950046. <

640 N.W.2d 714 (2002) 2002 ND 44 Cody Darrell HENDERSON, Petitioner and Appellee, v. DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent and Appellant. No. 20010222. Supreme Court of North Dakota. March 12, 2002. *717 Vince H. Ficek, Ficek & Buresh, P.C., Dickinson, for petitioner and appel

766 F.2d 378 26 Ed. Law Rep. 52 Clarence E. OKESON, Appellant/Appellee,v.TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, County of Renville, State ofNorth Dakota, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, ErnestMau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg,individually and as members of the School Board of TolleyPublic School District No. 25, Appellees/Appellants. Nos. 84-1254, 82-

467 F.Supp.2d 187 (2006) CONSTELLATION POWER SOURCE, INC., Plaintiff v. SELECT ENERGY, INC., Defendant. No. 3:04cv983 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 14, 2006. *188 *189 Bradford S. Babbitt, Brett J. BosIdewicz, Robinson & Cole, Hartford, CT, Eric N. Macey, Jo

760 F.2d 864 24 Ed. Law Rep. 733 Clarence E. OKESON, Appellant/Appellee,v.TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, COUNTY OF RENVILLE, STATE OFNORTH DAKOTA, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, ErnestMau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg,individually and as members of the School Board of TolleyPublic School District No. 25, Appellees/Appellants. Nos. 84-1254, 84

GONZALEZ, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I would sustain appellant’s fifth and seventh points of error and hold that the two year statute of limitations deprives appellant of due process of law in violation of the Texas Constitution, article I, section 13, and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.1 In the recent case of Sax v. V

319 F.Supp. 375 (1970) LEMMON PHARMACAL CO., Plaintiff, v. Elliott L. RICHARDSON, Acting Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Roger O. Egeberg, M.D., Assistant Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs and Charles C. Edwards, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 68-921. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. October 26, 1970.

570 F.Supp. 408 (1983) Clarence E. OKESON, Plaintiff, v. TOLLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25, County of Renville, State of North Dakota, a public corporation; and Terry Spear, Ernest Mau, Wayne Hellebust, Carol Resch, and Gerald Egeberg, individually and as members of the Tolley Public School District No. 25, Defendants. Civ. No. A4-82-18. United States District Court, D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. Clarence E. Okeson appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of North Dakota following a jury verdict in favor of appellees, the Tol*866ley School District No. 25 (School Board) and five members of the School Board. Okeson brought this action after his termination by the School Board. Okeson alleged that app

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER VAN SICKLE, District Judge. This action concerns the dismissal of Clarence E. Okeson by the School Board of Tolley Public School District No. 25. On May 22, 1981, Okeson entered into a one-year contract with the School District to serve as Superintendent. Approximately six months later, Okeson was dismissed by the Board. He now brings suit against the Board under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and