Duff v. Kearns-Duff
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Varriano v. Varriano (N.D. 2011)
- Becker v. Becker (N.D. 2011)
- Woodward v. Woodward (N.D. 2013)
- Klein v. Klein (N.D. 2015)
- Conzemius v. Conzemius (N.D. 2014)
- Kruckenberg v. State (N.D. 2013)
- State v. Bentz (N.D. 2013)
- Hoverson v. Hoverson (N.D. 2013)
- Interest of B.K. (N.D. 2012)
- Martiré v. Martiré (N.D. 2012)
- Motschman v. Bridgepoint (N.D. 2011)
- Nuveen v. Nuveen (N.D. 2011)
- Van Beek v. Van Beek (N.D. 2025)
- Kaspari v. Kaspari (N.D. 2022)
- Stock v. Stock (N.D. 2016)
- Werven v. Werven (N.D. 2016)
- Eggers v. Eggers (N.D. 2015)
- McCarthy v. McCarthy (N.D. 2014)
- Steen v. State (N.D. 2013)
- Dieterle v. Dieterle (N.D. 2013)
- Forsman v. Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc. (N.D. 2012)
- State v. Anaya-Verajerano (N.D. 2012)
- Becker v. Becker (N.D. 2011)
- State v. Aabrekke (N.D. 2011)
- Martinson v. Martinson (N.D. 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Filed 12/21/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Scott Gregory Foss, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20100151
Appeal from the District Court of Mercer County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
James O. Johnson, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 39, Stanton, ND 58571-0039, for plaintiff and appellee.
Kent M. Morrow, 411 North 4th Street, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, ND 58502-
2155, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Foss
No. 20100151
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Scott Gregory Foss appeals the district court’s judgment entered after his conditional plea to the charges of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Foss argues the criminal judgment should be vacated and the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress should be reversed because law enforcement did not have probable cause for the arrest or for the search. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding law enforcement had probable cause for the arrest and the search was a valid search incident to the arrest.
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Mary Muehlen Maring
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Dale V. Sandstrom
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.