New opinions: Jan. 23 Friday, January 24, 2020
The Supreme Court has issued 23 new opinions. Summaries of the non per curiam opinions are below.
To see an opinion, 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
|
Devore v. American Eagle Energy Corporation, et al. 2020 ND 23 Highlight: An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. |
|
PHI Financial Services v. Johnston Law Office, et al. 2020 ND 22 Highlight: A motion to dismiss a complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it is disclosed with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
|
State v. Mondragon 2020 ND 21 Highlight: When determining if there is good cause to continue when a defendant has elected his statutory speedy trial rights, failure of the court to address the factors will not be reversed if we are able to analyze the factors based on the record. A defendant cannot have the benefit of delay while simultaneously claiming the right to a speedy trial. A failure to show prejudice substantially weakens a speedy trial claim. |
|
Hondl v. State, et al. 2020 ND 20 Highlight: Absent personal jurisdiction, a court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice. |
|
Chisholm v. State 2020 ND 19 Highlight: District courts are required to dismiss an applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act proceeding. |
|
Thomas v. Thomas 2020 ND 18 Highlight: Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C, creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. A district court is not bound to accept stipulations regarding custody and care of children if it finds the stipulations are not in the best interests of the child. A district court’s findings and conclusions regarding the presumption and stipulations should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision. |
|
Konkel v. Amb 2020 ND 17 Highlight: A parent moving to modify parenting time must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that the modification is in the child’s best interests. |
|
Hauer v. Zerr, et al. 2020 ND 16 Highlight: A mistake of law arising out of ignorance of the law rather than a misapprehension of the law does not support the remedy of reformation. |
|
State v. Wallitsch 2020 ND 15 Highlight: The district court did not obviously err by not providing a curative instruction regarding a potential juror’s comments during voir dire. |
|
Ellis v. WSI 2020 ND 14 Highlight: The time for an appeal from a posthearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and ch. 28-32. The Legislature has set the time for an appeal to the district court at thirty days from the date notice of the order has been given as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-39, including service by mail. |
|
State v. Lail 2020 ND 13 Highlight: In murder for hire cases, taking actions that could reasonably lead to the hired individual committing the solicited killing constitute a substantial step in attempting to commit the underlying crime. |
|
Minn-Kota Ag Products, Inc. v. N.D. Public Service Commission, et al. 2020 ND 12 Highlight: Any person who is directly interested in the proceedings before an administrative agency, who is factually aggrieved by the decision of the agency, and who participates in the proceedings before the agency is a party and has standing to appeal from the decision of the agency. |
|
Cook v. Cook, et al. 2020 ND 11 Highlight: Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. |
|
Reineke v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation 2020 ND 10 Highlight: Suspension of a driver's license must be done in accordance to law. |
|
Gustafson v. Poitra, et al. 2020 ND 9 Highlight: The appellants did not meet their burden under either Montana exception and did not explain how a district court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction by granting a remedy that may not be enforceable. The district court judgment is affirmed. |
|
Presswood v. Runyan 2020 ND 8 Highlight: The right to appeal is jurisdictional and, if we conclude we do not have jurisdiction, we will dismiss an appeal on our own motion. |
|
Jarvis v. WSI 2020 ND 7 Highlight: An appeal to a district court from a post-hearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. |
|
McDougall, et al. v. AgCountry Farm Credit Services, PCA, et al. 2020 ND 6 Highlight: The statute of frauds does not bar a deceit claim made by a third party to an unenforceable contract, who is not seeking to enforce the alleged agreement. |
|
Aldinger v. Aldinger 2020 ND 5 Highlight: Judgment affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(4), and (7). |