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|
|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|
|15||01/12/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|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|
|19||02/19/2010 ARGUED: Boughey/Morgahan|
|20||02/18/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|21||04/06/2010 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|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|