New opinions: October 22, 2025 Wednesday, October 22, 2025
|
Heisler v. Reiger, et al. 2025 ND 180 Highlight: A post-trial motion invoking both N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal until notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion when the motion is brought within the time limits set forth in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(c)(2) and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3). |
|
Eggl v. State 2025 ND 179 Highlight: Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client. |
|
State v. Chambers 2025 ND 178 Highlight: A criminal defendant failed to show his substantial rights were prejudiced by the potential ambiguity of pleading guilty to both a cognizable offense and a non-cognizable offense where there was a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea to the cognizable offense. The requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B) did not apply where the criminal defendant entered an open plea rather than pleading guilty under a plea agreement in which the parties presented a joint recommendation on a proposed sentence. |
|
Schultz v. Schultz 2025 ND 177 Highlight: A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |
|
Hernandez v. State 2025 ND 176 Highlight: A district court order dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6). |
|
Corey v. Kenneh 2025 ND 175 Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is affirmed. |
|
State v. King 2025 ND 174 Highlight: Obvious error analysis requires consideration whether the district court clearly deviated from applicable current law. |
|
Olson v. Olson, et al. 2025 ND 173 Highlight: Certified questions from our state district courts have a more stringent standard than foreign courts, requiring the question to be determinative, because the parties have a right to appeal. |
|
State v. Santiago Agosto 2025 ND 172 Highlight: A district court criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). |
|
Interest of Skorick 2025 ND 171 Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. |
|
Williamson v. Williamson 2025 ND 170 Highlight: A district court's judgment of divorce, order denying reconsideration, and order awarding attorney's fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6). |
|
Thompson v. City of Adams, et al. 2025 ND 169 Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al. 2025 ND 168 Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al. 2025 ND 168 Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient. |
|
State v. Jemal 2025 ND 167 Highlight: In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings to support its decision to revoke probation instead of choosing alternative sanctions. |
|
Sutherby v. Astanina, et al. 2025 ND 166 Highlight: A district court must credit a noncustodial parent for voluntary child support payments made during the pendency of an action when calculating past-due support obligations. When a court orders child support with a retroactive effective date, it must offset any past-due support owed by payments the noncustodial parent made to the custodial parent for the children's benefit during the relevant period. |
|
Rugland v. State 2025 ND 165 Highlight: An order denying a postconviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). |