New Opinions: February 27Thursday, February 27, 2025
State v. Plentychief 2025 ND 44 Docket No.: 20240334 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:Motion to reconsider order of dismissal denied.
Disciplinary Board v. Spencer Docket No.: 20240339 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Suspension Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered.
Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al. 2025 ND 47 Docket No.: 20240083 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable.
When interpreting a contract, N.D.C.C. § 9-07-06 provides that the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable. If the granting clause describes the land as being an undivided interest in the land and a subsequent reservation which reserves a fractional part of the "land conveyed," or words of similar import, the reservation will be construed as reserving to the grantor the stated fractional interest of the fraction described in the granting clause.
A Duhig problem does not arise when a grantor, who owns an undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in a parcel of land via partnership, conveys the undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in the land's surface and a one-fourth (1/4) interest in land's minerals but reserves for himself the other one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals of the same land.
An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms. Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Stipulations as to the law are also invalid.
Language tying a royalty interest to another interest, such as a one-eighth royalty interest of an eight percent interest, creates a floating royalty.
Hoistad v. NDDOT 2025 ND 45 Docket No.: 20240297 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan
Highlight:The Department bears the burden of proving a chemical breath test result was fairly administered. If the Department fails to establish compliance with the approved method which goes to the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test, the Department must prove fair administration of the test through expert testimony.
When it is ready for the second breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 8000 displays, "Please Blow Until Tone Stops." The word "until" in this context signifies the point at which the driver should cease blowing into the instrument. Repeatedly blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stopped is contrary to the instructions displayed by the Intoxilyzer 8000 and, thus, the approved method.
Unless the impact of a deviation is within the knowledge of an ordinary person, it is the Department's burden to show through expert testimony whether a deviation from the approved method impacted the accuracy and reliability of the test. An ordinary person does not know what impact, if any, a subject's repeated blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stops has on the test results.
When the officer's deviations from the approved method involve the procedures for collecting and testing the sample, it raises the possibility that the deviation impacted the test result.
Even though the Department's action is not upheld by a court, a party is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) when the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision.
Anderson v. Foss, et al. 2024 ND 154 Docket No.: 20240008 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A district court did not abuse its discretion when setting the commencement date for the new child support obligation one year from the date of the motion to modify.
A district court did not err in ruling that timely requests for health insurance related reimbursements was not necessary when the requests became futile and when the amount owed to the parent making the requests is the same amount each month.
A district court's findings removing one parent's ability to make day-to-day decisions are not clearly erroneous.
State v. Williams 2025 ND 46 Docket No.: 20240203 Filing Date: 2/27/2025 Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.
To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.
When an issue is not raised at the trial court, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.
A defendant's due process rights may be violated by a prosecutor's actions that constitute misconduct that has a prejudicial effect.
