New opinions: March 26, 2026 Thursday, March 26, 2026

B.S., et al. v. Lopez-Rangel 2026 ND 70
Docket No.: 20250357
Filing Date: 3/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court's findings must be specifically detailed to explain the factual basis for its decision to include individuals as protected parties under domestic violence protection orders.

A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to sufficiently explain the court's rationale for the domestic violence protection order's duration.

Vormestrand v. Craig, et al. 2026 ND 69
Docket No.: 20250278
Filing Date: 3/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The district court's decision on a new trial motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably, when its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or when it misapplies or misinterprets the law. An abuse of discretion is never assumed; the burden is upon the party seeking relief to affirmatively establish it.

Even if evidence of domestic violence does not rise to the level triggering the rebuttable presumption against awarding perpetrating parent residential responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j), the evidence must be considered if it is credible.

A district court does not abuse its discretion by requiring a witness to testify from memory, without the assistance of notes, if the witness does not indicate a need for the notes, such as to refresh recollection.

Self-represented litigants are not granted relaxed judicial standards or greater judicial assistance than litigants represented by counsel.

When a dispositive motion fully resolves all pending claims, a district court need not address other pending motions that are rendered moot by that final disposition, regardless of when those motions were filed.