Seiler v. Dept. of Human Services
Rachel Seiler, Appellant
State of North Dakota
Department of Human Services, Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
|Nature of Action:||Administrative Proceeding|
|Term:||02/2010  Argument: 02/19/2010 10:00am|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 55|
780 N.W.2d 653
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Issue No.1: In a child neglect case on appeal to an administrative law judge from the Department of Human Services that services are required, whether the Department of Human Services has the right to call the subject of the services required decision as a witness in the Department's case-in-chief.
Issue No.2: Whether the subject of the services required decision may assert her fifth amendment privilege to refuse to answer any question during the Department's case-in-chief.
Issue No.3: If the subject of the services required decision asserts her fifth amendment privilege to refuse to answer any questions in the Department's case-in-chief and the judge allows her to invoke her fifth amendment rights, whether that precludes her from testifying at all on her behalf?
Issue No.4: If the subject of the services required decision asserts her fifth amendment privilege to refuse to answer any questions during the Department's case-in-chief and the judge allows her to invoke her fifth amendment rights and she subsequently testifies on her own behalf during her case-in-chief, whether the Department limited in the scope of questions it may ask in cross-examination.
Issue No.5: Application of Section 28-32-51 as it relates to the assertion by the subject of the services required decision that the Department's refusal to grant immunity from criminal prosecution is an admission by the state that there is indeed a risk of prosecution and that fifth amendment protections should apply.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether review of the Fifth Amendment issues identified by Seiler is necessary given that she does not ask this Court to reverse the "services required" administrative decision.
II. Whether the administrative law judge properly resolved all Fifth Amendment issues.
|Add Docket 20090305 RSS|
|1||10/19/2009||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10/14/2009|
|2||10/19/2009||PDF copy of Admin Transcripts dtd. 10-08 & 02-09|
|3||10/21/2009||Received amended Notice of Appeal filed in tr. ct. 10/19/09.|
|4||10/22/2009||DISK - Admin TRA dtd. 10-08 & 2-09|
|5||11/09/2009||RECORD ON APPEAL & SEPARATE (ENTRY NO. 7-CERTIFICATE OF RECORD).|
|6||11/23/2009||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (faxed)|
|7||11/23/2009||ACTION BY CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 12/14/2009|
|8||12/14/2009||APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed) PDF|
|9||12/14/2009||E-FILED BRIEF (ATB) PDF|
|10||12/14/2009||APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed) PDF|
|11||12/14/2009||E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|12||12/18/2009||Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #19277).|
|13||12/21/2009||Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD|
|14||12/21/2009||Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|16||01/12/2010||DISK - aeb (e-mailed)|
|17||01/19/2010||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|18||02/19/2010||APPEARANCES: Lynn M. Boughey/Andrew Morgahan|
|20||02/18/2010||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|22||04/06/2010||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|23||04/07/2010||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|25||05/19/2010||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|