New Opinions: March 7 Thursday, March 7, 2024
Meuchel v. Red Trail Energy 2024 ND 44 Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a member’s request for certain information in a board-managed limited liability company under the applicable statute governing an LLC member’s right to information. |
Interest of A.P. 2024 ND 43 Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is reversed. The court’s findings on termination are clearly erroneous because the findings are not supported by evidence in the record. The juvenile court abused its discretion by relying on affidavits in the file that were not received into evidence. |
State v. Henderson 2024 ND 42 Highlight: A criminal judgment is reversed because the district court abused its discretion by admitting several trial exhibits that were not properly authenticated under N.D.R.Ev. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay that lacked sufficient foundation as records of regularly conducted activity under N.D.R.Ev. 803(6). |
Interest of R.K. 2024 ND 41 Highlight: A district court’s order continuing an individual’s treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2). |
Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co. 2024 ND 40 Highlight: We answer two certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota regarding North Dakota’s natural accumulation rule, which precludes liability for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice. The questions ask whether the accumulation rule extends to an oil well site in a rural area, and, if so, does it still apply if it conceals a condition substantially more dangerous than one normally associated with ice and snow. |
State v. Wiese 2024 ND 39 Highlight: Obvious error analysis does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error, unless a constitutional error is structural. |
Archambault v. State 2024 ND 38 Highlight: To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Strickland test, the applicant must show: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. |
Weber v. NDDOT 2024 ND 37 Highlight: A driver arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol was provided a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel when he was permitted to use his cellphone to call a third party to help contact an attorney and made no additional requests or attempts to contact counsel. |
Interest of J.C. 2024 ND 36 Highlight: Order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |