Search Tips

New opinions: April 6 Monday, April 6, 2020

The Supreme Court has issued seven new opinions. The summaries are below.

To see anopinion, click on the "View Opinion" button. Opinions display in a printable format. Hyperlinks to all North Dakota opinions and rules cited in an opinion are included in the text: hover over the citation and click to follow the hyperlink.

See other Supreme Court opinions at: /supreme-court/opinions

State v. Craig 2020 ND 80
Docket No.: 20190282
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: HOMICIDE
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

Schweitzer v. Miller 2020 ND 79
Docket No.: 20190157
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other)
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a proceeding.
Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a child’s “home state” is the state where a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.

State v. Krogstad 2020 ND 78
Docket No.: 20190290
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Willprecht v. Willprecht 2020 ND 77
Docket No.: 20190201
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other)
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: In divorce proceedings, if the parties do not agree on a valuation date for marital property, the valuation date is the date the parties separated or the date of the service of the summons in the action, whichever occurred first.

A district court errs as a matter of law in setting a child support obligation if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines.

A district court’s ability to award post-minority child support is limited to circumstances under which the parents have a statutory legal duty to support adult children.

A district court errs if it orders child support to equitably balance the burdens of the divorce and to reduce an income disparity between the parties.

Christianson v. NDDOT 2020 ND 76
Docket No.: 20190348
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: TRANSPORTATION DEPT.
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The Department of Transportation’s decision to suspend an individual’s driving privileges was not in accordance with the law when it was based on evidence that was inadmissible at the adjudication hearing.

Joyce v. Joyce 2020 ND 75
Docket No.: 20190224
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: OTHER (Civil)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.

Highlight: A district court may require a hearing even when no party requests a hearing.
Courts do not need to take judicial notice of foreign laws on their own initiative.
Courts must take judicial notice of foreign laws once a party has pleaded or presented the foreign law or asked the court to take judicial notice of the foreign law.
For a court to take judicial notice of foreign law, the requesting party must plead or present the foreign law or specifically request the court take judicial notice of the foreign law.
Courts may inform themselves of foreign laws in any manner they deem proper and may call upon counsel to aid in obtaining foreign laws.
A district court’s finding of fact that a contract is a complete, final, and binding agreement is not clearly erroneous when the party arguing for the contract’s invalidity based on a mutual mistake presents no evidence of a mistake.

State v. West 2020 ND 74
Docket No.: 20190311
Filing Date: 4/6/2020
Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.

Highlight: Probationers consent to reasonable warrantless searches when they submit to a search condition as part of the terms of their probation.
An individual sharing a residence with a probationer forfeits his or her ability to seek suppression of evidence obtained during a reasonable warrantless probationary search when he or she does not object at the time of the search.