Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Dodson

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 2003No. 20030042Published

1Concurrence

SÁNDSTROM, Justice,'

concurring specially.

[¶ 30] Although this Court may, in an appropriate case, interpret a provision of our State Constitution differently than the United States Supreme Court has interpreted a parallel provision of the United States Constitution, this Court’s interpretation must be based on the history of the document, not the individual philosophy or views of the justices. As Justice Vande-Walle wrote in his special concurrence in State v. Ringquist, 433 N.W.2d 207, 217 (N.D.1988):

Although I agree we need not merely echo the United States Supreme Court in applying our own…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  2. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. State v. RingquistNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. HerrickNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. $17,515.00 in Cash MoneyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API