![[Picture of Supreme Court]](/court/COURT/court99.JPG)
Left to right: (Sitting) Justice Dale V. Sandstrom; Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle; Justice William A. Neumann;
(Standing) Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner; Justice Mary Muehlen Maring
The North Dakota Supreme Court has five Justices. Each Justice is elected for a ten-year term in a nonpartisan election. The terms of the Justices are staggered so that only one judgeship is scheduled for election every two years. Each Justice must be a licensed attorney and a citizen of the United States and North Dakota.
One member of the Supreme Court is selected as Chief Justice by the Justices of the Supreme Court and the District Court Judges. The Chief Justice's term is for five years or until the Justice's elected term on the court expires. The Chief Justice's duties include presiding over Supreme Court conferences, representing the judiciary at official state functions, and serving as the administrative head of the judicial system.
The North Dakota Supreme Court is the highest court for the State of North Dakota. It has two major types of responsibilities: (1) adjudicative and (2) administrative.
In its adjudicative capacity, the Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court with jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the district courts. All appeals from these courts must be ripe for review by the Court. In addition, the Court also has original jurisdiction authority and can issue such original and remedial writs as are necessary to exercise this authority.
The state constitution requires that a majority of the Justices is necessary before the Court can conduct its adjudicative business. In addition, the Court cannot declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional unless four of the Justices so decide. When the Court reverses, modifies, or affirms a trial court judgment or order, it is required to issue a written opinion stating the reasons for its decision. Any Justice disagreeing with the majority opinion may issue a dissenting opinion which explains the reasons for the disagreement with the majority.
In its administrative capacity, the Supreme Court has major responsibilities for ensuring the efficient and effective operation of all non-federal courts in the state, maintaining high standards of judicial conduct, supervising the legal profession, and promulgating procedural rules which allow for the orderly and efficient transaction of judicial business. Within each area of administrative responsibility the Court has general rulemaking authority.
The Court carries out its administrative responsibilities with the assistance of various committees and boards. It exercises its authority to admit and license attorneys through the State Board of Law Examiners. Its supervision of legal ethics is exercised through the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court and its supervision of judicial conduct is exercised through the Judicial Conduct Commission. Continuing review and study of specific subject areas within its administrative jurisdiction is provided through five advisory committees - the Joint Procedure Committee, the Joint Committee on Attorney Standards, the Judiciary Standards Committee, the Court Services Administration Committee, and the Judicial Planning Committee. Other committees, such as, the Continuing Judicial Education Commission, Juvenile Policy Board, Personnel Policy Board, and the Legal Counsel for Indigents Commission, also provide valuable assistance to the Supreme Court in important administrative areas.
Administrative personnel of the Supreme Court also play a vital role in helping the court fulfill its administrative functions. The clerk of the Supreme Court supervises the calendaring and assignment of cases, oversees the distribution and publication of Supreme Court opinions, administrative rules and orders, decides certain procedural motions filed with the Court, and serves as an ex-officio member to the State Board of Law Examiners and the Disciplinary Board. The state court administrator is responsible for the budgetary oversight of the judicial system, ensures information technology needs are met, prepares statistical reports on the workload of the state's courts, provides judicial educational services, and performs such other administrative duties that are assigned by the Supreme Court. The state law librarian supervises the operation of the state law library.
The workload of the Supreme Court is varied and, at times, underappreciated possibly due to a misconception of the scope of the Court's responsibilities. Not only does the state's highest court decide appeals that are a matter of right, they consider petitions for the discretionary exercise of the court's original, supervisory and mandamus jurisdiction, reports recommending the public discipline of attorneys and judges, recommendations for the amendment, adoption or repeal of procedural and administrative rules, petitions regarding the disposition of judicial vacancies and the relocation of judgeships, and a variety of issues regarding the administration of the judicial system. Additionally, the Justices serve on state and national committees and boards established to assist in improving the judicial system. It is not surprising, therefore, that while there was a decrease in case filings in 2001, there was not much relief in the Justices' workload.
The Justices authored an average of 42 majority opinions, and an additional 49 opinions concurring and/or dissenting with the majority position were separately authored. Oral arguments were scheduled in 187 cases, and the Justices also continued the practice of having weekly motions and administrative conferences.
Appeals in tort, personal injury, contracts and family related cases decreased more than other civil case filings. Despite a decrease, family related cases accounted for over 28% of the civil caseload in 2001, up from 24% last year. Appeals of orders terminating parental rights experienced the largest decrease in the family related area.
Despite a decrease in the total case filings, appeals in criminal cases rose by 33%. Appeals of convictions involving theft and sexual offenses significantly increased, (110% and 90% respectively). Over 52% of the Supreme Court's criminal caseload involves convictions of theft, sexual, and drug offenses.
In approximately 16% of all cases, one or more parties elected to represent themselves on appeal. This is down slightly from 2001.
The most appeals originated from the South Central Judicial District, followed by the East Central, Northeast, Southeast, Northeast Central, Northwest and Southwest Districts.
CASELOAD SYNOPSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE 2000 AND 2001 CALENDAR YEARS
| 2001 | 2000 | Percent Difference | |
| New Filings Civil Criminal | 307 195 112 | 350 266 84 | -12.29 -26.69 33.33 |
| Transferred to Court of Appeals Civil Criminal | 0 0 0 | 2 1 1 | -100.00 -100.00 -100.00 |
| New Filings Balance Civil Criminal | 307 195 112 | 348 265 83 | -11.78 -26.42 34.94 |
| Filings Carried Over From Previous Calendar Year | 185 | 189 | -2.12 |
| Total Cases Docketed | 492 | 537 | -8.38 |
| Dispositions Civil Criminal | 340 242 98 | 352 267 85 | -3.13 -8.99 15.29 |
| Cases Pending as of December 31 Civil | 152 99 | 185 147 | -18.38 -32.65 39.47 |
| Civil | Criminal | |
| BY OPINION: Affirmed Affirmed & Modified Reversed; Reversed & Remanded Affirmed in Part & Reversed in Part Affirmed by Summary Disposition Dismissed Discipline Imposed Original Jurisdiction--Denied Original Jurisdiction--Granted Certified Question Answered Remanded Order/Judgment Vacated/ Remanded | 89 0 26 23 29 1 0 2 | 18 0 7 5 20 1 0 |
| Dispositions by Opinion | 181 | 53 |
| BY ORDER: Dismissed Dismissed After Conference Original Jurisdiction--Denied Original Jurisdiction--Granted | 39 7 14 1 | 26 9 10 0 |
| Dispositions by Order | 61 | 45 |
| Total Dispositions for 2001 | 242 | 98 |
CASELOAD OVERVIEW OF NORTH DAKOTA COURTS
| Level of Court | Filings 2001 2000 | Dispositions 2001 2000 | ||
| Supreme Court | 307 | 350 | 341 | 352 |
| District Courts | 145,942 | 144,687 | 157,784 | 157,571 |
The Court of Appeals was established in 1987 to assist the Supreme Court in managing its workload. In calendar year 2001, the Supreme Court transferred no cases to the Court of Appeals. However, opinions were filed in the two cases which were pending at the end of 2000.
Since it was established, the Court of Appeals has written opinions disposing of 75 cases.
Cases assigned to the Court of Appeals under Administrative Rule 27 may include family law issues; appeals from administrative agency decisions; appeals from trial court orders on motions for summary judgment; appeals involving cases originating under the Uniform Juvenile Court Act; and appeals from misdemeanor convictions.
Authorization for the Court of Appeals extends to January 1, 2004.
Statistical summaries of the Court of Appeals cases assignments and dispositions follow.
CASELOAD SYNOPSIS OF THE Civil 0 Civil Civil Criminal 2 0 Civil
20012001 Cases Assigned
Criminal
0
0Filings Carried Over From Previous Calendar Year
Criminal
2
2
0Total Cases Docketed
Civil
Criminal
2
2
0Dispositions 2 Cases Pending as of December 31
Criminal
0
0
02001 DISPOSITIONS Civil Criminal Affirmed 2 0 TOTAL 2001 DISPOSITIONS
2
0