Judicial Conduct Commission v. Tessmann, 2002 ND 15 Former municipal judge censured for violation of N.D. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2, and prohibited from serving as a judge.
January 18, 2002
Bender v. Aviko USA L.L.C., 2002 ND 13 In opposing a summary judgment motion, a party may not simply rely on unsupported and conclusory allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must, instead, set forth specific facts illustrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial. State v. Perreault, 2002 ND 14 A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the information, but does not serve as a device for summary trial of the evidence. A trial court may not grant a pretrial motion to dismiss based on a defense which raises factual questions embraced in the general issue of the defendant's guilt.
January 15, 2002
City of Fargo v. Tipler, 2002 ND 8 Juries do not have a right to decide a case contrary to law or fact, but instead, must accept the law from the trial court and apply the law to the facts. Disciplinary Board v. Crary, 2002 ND 9 A lawyer may not draft a will that includes a substantial testamentary gift to the lawyer or the lawyer's parent, child, sibling, or spouse, unless the client is related to the beneficiary. Disbarment ordered. Disciplinary Board v. Swanson, 2002 ND 6 Disbarment is an appropriate sanction when an attorney violates numerous rules of professional conduct involving a lack of diligence, and the attorney has a prior disciplinary history involving similar conduct. Interest of J.S., 2002 ND 7 Before a court may order the extension of a continuing-treatment order it must find the patient is mentally ill, and there is a reasonable expectation that, if not treated, there exists a serious risk of harm to the patient, others, or property. In some cases, a reporting doctor may reasonably conclude that less restrictive alternatives to hospitalization simply do not exist. Judicial Vacancy in the Northwest District, 2002 ND 12 Judgeship ordered retained in Minot. St. Claire v. State, 2002 ND 10 A trial court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief if there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State v. BlackCloud, 2002 ND 11 Trial court's order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). State v. Marshall, 2002 ND 3 Denials of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion for correction of sentence and N.D.R.Crim.P. 36 motion for correction of a clerical mistake in sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1). State v. Palmer, 2002 ND 5 To establish a failure to comply with the statutory process for drawing a jury, the complaining party must provide a factual basis showing the process was prejudicial, actually excluded, systematically excluded, or statistically excluded a fair cross section of the population. Ordinarily, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be resolved in a post- conviction relief proceeding where the parties can fully develop a record on the issue of counsel's performance and its impact on the defendant's case. State v. Weaver, 2002 ND 4 In reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and the appellate court determines only whether there is evidence which could have allowed the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. When a defendant adopts an all-or-nothing trial strategy and fails to request instructions on lesser included offenses, the trial court's failure to instruct on lesser included offenses does not constitute obvious error.
January 4, 2002
Terry v. Terry, 2002 ND 2 A party seeking to set aside a judgment based upon a stipulation must show that, under the law of contracts, there is justification for setting aside the stipulation. Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., which sets forth the grounds for vacating a judgment, is not to be used to relieve a party from free, calculated, and deliberate choices.
January 3, 2002
Jaskoviak v. Gruver, 2002 ND 1 Evidence submitted with a motion for reconsideration after summary judgment has been granted is untimely. Generally, an integral part of the physician's overall obligation to the patient is the duty of reasonable disclosure of the available choices with respect to the proposed therapy and of the material and known risks potentially involved in each. In an informed consent case, expert testimony is generally necessary to identify the risks of treatment, their gravity, likelihood of occurrence, and reasonable alternatives.