Supreme Court Rules and Administration. Text of the section: current and prior versions.

Every citing reference in the corpus: 44 court opinions and 5 Attorney General opinions. Counts include the section's pre-1981 designation (§ 87 (from 1976-10-07)), era-gated by the renumbering crosswalk.

Generated from the citation graph of the validated corpus. Treatment groupings (construing / citing / recital) are heuristic reading aids, not editorial judgments — read the opinion before relying on any signal.

Topics are machine-generated groupings of the citing references — reading aids, not editorial judgments. Documents cited after the last classification pass appear in the lists below until the next pass.

• State v. Neilan, 2021 ND 217 (2021, Jensen, J.)
• State v. $3260.00 United States Currency, et al., 2018 ND 112 (2018, Jensen, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 9: “…This Court has held that: Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3, this Court has the authority to promulgate the rules of procedure to be followed by all the courts of this state. We have explained the interplay between statutory procedures and rules promulgated by this Court, and we…”
• State v. Ebertz, 2010 ND 79 (2010, Maring, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 11: “…Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3, this Court has the authority to promulgate the rules of procedure to be followed by all the courts of this state. We have explained the interplay between statutory procedures and rules promulgated by this Court, and we…”
• State v. Brown, 2009 ND 150 (2009, Kapsner, J.)
• Dietz v. Dietz, 2007 ND 84 (2007, Maring, J.) · construes
  • ¶ 17: “…right to a reply brief, N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2) allows a moving party to serve and file a reply brief within five days of service of an answer brief. This Court has the authority to promulgate rules of procedure in courts of this state under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3, and when construing a procedural rule and a statute, we harmonize them if possible. *Traynor v. Leclerc,* 1997 ND 47, ¶8, 561 N.W.2d 644. We conclude the district court erred in not allowing Dietz an opportunity to f…”
• State v. Hanson, 1996 ND 235 (1996, Neumann, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…16, N.D.R.Crim.P., and declaring that he had no duty to disclose information sought by the State under § 29–01–32, N.D.C.C. The trial court ruled that § 29–01–32, N.D.C.C., is unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine1 and under [*612] Art. VI, § 3, N.D. Const. The court’s order required Hanson to “supply the materials requested by the State pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16.” The order provided that Hanson “need not supply the materials requested under the pr…”
• In Interest of EJH, 1996 ND 84 (1996, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…fully specified, the duration of its dispositions strictly limited by legislative mandate. E.g., N.D.C.C. §§ 27–20–08,–18 to–25,–37,–56.1 1 The constitutionality of such legislatively mandated judicial procedure may be open to question. N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3 (“The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state....”). Our district courts, on the other hand, are constitutional…”
• State v. Knudson, 1993 ND 81 (1993, Levine, J.)
• State v. Wishnatsky, 1992 ND 185 (1992, Erickstad, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Ruether, 1992 ND 166 (1992, Meschke, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Dawson, 1991 ND 26 (1991, Levine, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…county court proceedings.4 4 Even if there were a conflict between Rule 23(a) and §§ 27-07.1-31 and 27-07.1-32, resolution of the issue would require consideration of the 1976 amendments to the Judicial Article of the North Dakota Constitution. Article VI, Section 3 provides in part that “[t]he supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state; ...” This constitutional provision places…”
• State v. Schimmel, 1987 ND 102 (1987, Gierke, J.)
• In Interest of DJH, 1987 ND 24 (1987, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…5 Our civil rules were initially adopted prior to the 1976 amendments of the Judicial Article of the North Dakota Constitution. Subsequent to November 1976, rules promulgated by our Court prevail over procedural rules enacted by the Legislature. Article VI, Section 3, of the North Dakota Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure and supersede procedural statutes. Section 3 provides in part as follows: “The supreme court shall have authority to promul…”
• Production Credit Ass'n of Mandan v. Olson, 1979 ND 86 (1979, Erickstad, J.)
• Arneson v. Olson, 1978 ND 96 (1978, Vogel, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ocedure, and we therefore express no opinion on the subject. Somewhat similar bodies were found to be constitutional in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, but unconstitutional in Ohio and Illinois. B. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AS TO JUDICIAL POWER VIOLATED [1] Section 87, Constitution of North Dakota, as amended in 1976, provides: “The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state; and,…”

• Disciplinary Board v. Baird (consolidated w/ 20210329-20210330), 2022 ND 146 (2022, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. Kellington (Consolidated w/ 20140081), 2014 ND 168 (2014, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. Feland, 2012 ND 174 (2012, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. Stensland, 2011 ND 110 (2011, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. McCray, 2008 ND 162 (2008, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. Johnson, 2007 ND 203 (2007, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board v. Giese, 2003 ND 82 (2003, per curiam)
• Montgomery v. Disciplinary Board, 2000 ND 127 (2000, per curiam)
• In re Montgomery, 1997 ND 148 (1997, per curiam)
• Matter of Disciplinary Action Against Larson, 1994 ND 35 (1994, VandeWalle, J.)
• Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. Jones, 1992 ND 128 (1992, per curiam)
• Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota v. Goetz, 1991 ND 135 (1991, Levine, J.)
• Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court v. Maragos, 1979 ND 139 (1979, Sand, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ing the integrity of the legal profession by imposing disciplinary measures, including disbarment or suspension of lawyers who indulge in conduct which will bring the court or the legal profession into disrepute. In re Peterson, 178 N.W.2d 738 (N.D.1970). 8 Section 87, North Dakota Constitution: The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state; and, unless otherwise provided by law,…”
• Grievance Commission v. Pohlman, 1976 ND 115 (1976, Erickstad, J.)

• State v. Whitman, 2013 ND 183 (2013, Maring, J.)
• Karla Paxton v. Theodore and Sandra Wiebe, 1998 ND 169 (1998, Maring, J.)
• Hamilton v. Hamilton, 1987 ND 119 (1987, Gierke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…courts of our State.3 Production Credit Association of Mandan v. Olson, 280 N.W.2d 920, 927 (N.D.1979); see also Sections 27 02 07 through 27 02 15, N.D.C.C. Rule 60, N.D.R.Civ.P., is one of the rules which has been promulgated by this Court. 3 Article VI, Section 3 of the North Dakota Constitution provides, in part: “The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure, including appellate procedure, to be followed by all the courts of this state; and, unless ot…”
• Gegelman ex rel. Gegelman v. Reiersgaard, 1979 ND 2 (1979, VandeWalle, J.)
• Young v. White, 1978 ND 66 (1978, Sand, J.)

• In the Matter of a Petition to Permit Temporary Provision of Legal Services by Qualified Attorneys From Outside North Dakota, 2017 ND 1 (2017, per curiam)
• Lamb v. State Board of Law Examiners, 2010 ND 11 (2010, Maring, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 7: “…functions of the others." *State v. Hanson,* 558 N.W.2d 611, 614 (N.D. 1996). We have also previously recognized, "[t]he term 'by law' is not limited to statute, but includes rules adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to the court's authority contained in Section 3, Article VI, North Dakota Constitution." *Dickinson Newspapers, Inc. v. Jorgensen,* 338 N.W.2d 72, 75 (N.D. 1983). Under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 3, this Court has the constitutional authority to promulgate rules regard…”
• In re Application of Graves for Admission, 2004 ND 64 (2004, per curiam)
• Ranta v. McCarney, 1986 ND 137 (1986, VandeWalle, J.) · construes, quotes the provision
  • “…tute under the pretense of pursuing its spirit because legislative intent is presumed clear from the face of the statute. Section 1–02–05, N.D.C.C.; Milbank Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 373 N.W.2d 888 (N.D.1985). The dissent thus ignores Article VI, Section 3, of the North Dakota Constitution which specifies that this court has the authority “unless otherwise provided by law to promulgate rules and regulations for the admission to practice, conduct, disciplining, and disbarm…”

• Zundel v. City of Jamestown, et al., 2024 ND 162 (2024, per curiam) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 14: “…f a supreme court, a district court, and such other courts as may be provided by law." N.D. Const. art. VI, § 1. "The supreme court shall have authority to promulgate rules of procedure ... to be followed by all the courts of this state." N.D. Const. art. VI, § 3. Under North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 19(2)(c) (1978 Rev. 1985), "[t]he judge of a municipal court or a clerk designated by the judge shall be responsible for the administration of all municipal court re…”
• In re Judicial Redistricting, 2013 ND 135 (2013, per curiam)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2006-O-06 (2006)
• Ziebarth v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul, 1992 ND 232 (1992, VandeWalle, J.)

• Hagen v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund, 2022 ND 53 (2022, Tufte, J.)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2005-O-19 (2005)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2003-O-06 (2003)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 00-O-12 (2000)

• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2020-L-09 (2020)
• Walter S. Olsen, III v. Allen Koppy, State's Attorney for Morton County, 1999 ND 87 (1999, Neumann, J.)
• Jensen v. State, 1985 ND 159 (1985, Levine, J.)

The sidebar keeps a curated digest; this page is the complete record.