Sayler v. Sayler
Citations
- 2023 ND 156
Syllabus
A motion to relocate is not necessary when residential responsibility has not previously been established. Therefore, consideration of the Stout-Hawkinson factors is not necessary when the district court originally determines parental responsibility of parents living in different states. The purpose or motive for a unilateral move is one of the many factors courts should consider and weigh when determining parental responsibility.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the Fourth Amendment is not violated by a warrantless arrest made in a public place
- holding that probable cause is sufficient for a public arrest to satisfy the Fourth Amendment
- holding that an officer could arrest a suspect in a public place based upon probable cause even without exigent circumstances
- holding that the defendant had not been coerced into consenting to a search, even though he had been arrested and was in police custody at the time
- holding that a nonexigent warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place upon probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment
- recognizing that a “strong presumption of constitutionality [is] due to an Act of Congress” (quoting United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 585 (1948)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bahr, Douglas Alan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.