Hanson, n/k/a Gunter v. Hanson , 1997 ND 151 - Civil No. 970016 Under the facts of the case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the custodial parent to obtain permission from the district court or the noncustodial parent in the event she wishes to migrate out of state with her children for four months.
Hassan v. Brooks , 1997 ND 150 - Civil No. 970025 Ordinary due care is the correct standard to determine liability, if any, for a collision between plaintiff's motor vehicle and defendant's cattle, which were not in a designated grazing area. Section 36-11-07(3), N.D.C.C., does not impose strict liability on the livestock owner in this case.
July 22, 1997
Mahoney v. Mahoney , 1997 ND 149 - Civil No. 970017 Failing to make specific objections to a special master's computation of net income for child support waives the right to argue on appeal that the trial court erred in adopting the special master's report. A trial court errs in failing to include spousal support payments in the recipient's gross income when calculating child support obligation under a split custody arrangement.
July 21, 1997
Montgomery v. Disciplinary Board , 1997 ND 148 - Civil No. 960391 All evidence of misconduct, including pre-disbarment misconduct, should be considered when determining whether a disbarred attorney has the requisite honesty and integrity to be reinstated to the bar. The more culpable a disbarred attorney's prior misconduct, the greater the burden upon the attorney to prove worthiness for reinstatement.
July 17, 1997
Baker v. Baker , 1997 ND 135 - Civil No. 960333 The trial court's finding that a former husband was "cohabiting in an informal marital relationship," thereby ending the former wife's spousal support obligation under the divorce decree, was not clearly erroneous.
Evenstad v. Buchholz , 1997 ND 141 - Civil No. 960352 The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's pretrial motions or in concluding the appellant had no legal or equitable interest in disputed farm property.
In the Matter of B.E.M., a Child , 1997 ND 134 - Civil No. 970030 Under the four-step analysis adopted in Stout v. Stout, 1997 ND 61, 561 N.W.2d 903, the trial court's decision to grant mother's motion to remove child from the state was not clearly erroneous.
Kahl v. Director, N.D. Department of Transportation , 1997 ND 147 - Civil No. 970031 Even though a defendant has served the full period of suspension of his driver's license prior to an appeal, the appeal is not moot. If a police officer observes even a minor traffic violation, the officer has grounds to stop the vehicle.
Lang v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau , 1997 ND 133 - Civil No. 960303 Bureau's order denying re-application for disability benefits based on a significant change in claimant's medical condition reversed. Case remanded to Bureau to determine whether claimant's work related injuries caused aggravation of osteoarthritis sufficient to reinstate benefits.
Lange v. State , 1997 ND 136 - Civil No. 970089 Denial of application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under NDRAppP 35.1(a)(6) and (7).
McCabe v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau , 1997 ND 145 - Civil No. 960336 Workers Compensation statutes requiring permanent partial impairment to be evaluated using the most recent edition of the AMA's "Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment" meant the most recent edition when the statutes were enacted.
Rainesalo v. P.A., a Child , 1997 ND 146 - Criminal No. 960308 Sufficient evidence existed to find juvenile committed conspiracy to commit reckless endangerment and reckless endangerment.
Reimche v. Reimche , 1997 ND 138 - Civil No. 960239 A continuance is the proper remedy for a party claiming unfair surprise. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial on the ground of irregularity or surprise. The trial court's custody determination is not clearly erroneous.
Rolin Manufacturing, Inc. v. Mosbrucker , 1997 ND 139 - Civil No. 970055 A trial court does not have authority to decide an appeal to the Supreme Court is frivolous.
Sowatzki v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau , 1997 ND 137 - Civil No. 960267 NDCC 28-32-21 only authorizes appeals to the Supreme Court from district court judgments in appeals from administrative agency orders. The question of the Bureau's authority to revoke a permanent partial impairment award and order repayment without first affording the claimant an opportunity to be heard, was a significant issue the district court should not have decided without complying with the provisions of NDCC Ch. 28-32.
State v. Avila , 1997 ND 142 - Criminal No. 960385 An inadequate record and lack of relevant findings by a trial court make appellate review of the court's denial of a suppression motion impossible, thus requiring reversal and remand for further proceedings.
State v. Fulks , 1997 ND 143 - Criminal No. 970027 An incarcerated defendant's right to have charges unrelated to his current incarceration tried within 90 days of giving notice to the court and state's attorney under the Detainers Act, Chapter 29-33, N.D.C.C., is not violated, where the conduct of the defendant and the defendant's attorney substantially contribute to the case not being brought to trial within 90 days. Delays or continuances primarily resulting from the conduct of a defendant or the defendant's attorney cannot be charged against the State in a claim of failure to bring a case to trial within 90 days. The appointment of counsel to represent a petitioner under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act is discretionary with the trial court, and the court's decision to not appoint an attorney will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion.
State v. Winkler , 1997 ND 144 - Criminal No. 970001 Order denying suppression affirmed. Officers' decision to seek a search warrant was not prompted by prior illegal entry, but was based on legally obtained independent information discovered prior to illegal entry.
Volesky v. N.D. Game & Fish Department , 1997 ND 140 - Civil No. 960374 In implementing a reduction in force under N.D.A.C. 59.5-03-03-07, the employer, a state agency, was not required to compare a RIF'd employee with other employees in different job classifications. The State Personnel Board's decision that a RIF was not a reprisal was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.