Highlight:The supreme court invokes its original jurisdiction only in cases publici juris and those affecting the sovereignty of the state, its franchises and prerogatives, or the liberties of its people. The supreme court has exercised original jurisdiction in cases where the separation of coequal branches of government and their respective authority have been challenged.
Constitutional provisions are generally given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. The overriding objective is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the people adopting the constitutional provision. The intent and purpose of constitutional provisions are to be determined, if possible, from the language itself.
Under North Dakota Constitution Article IV, § 13, “[n]o bill may embrace more than one subject, which must be expressed in its title.” When a bill embraces multiple subjects, all of which are expressed in its title, the whole bill is void due to the manifest impossibility of choosing which parts of the bill are valid and which are void. A court’s attempt to choose between the provisions would improperly inject it into the Legislature’s domain.
Interest of P.R.-K.2023 ND 184 Docket No.: 20230281 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
Jones v. Rath2023 ND 183 Docket No.: 20230018 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: OTHER (Civil) Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment.
For purposes of appellate review, an aggrieved party is someone whose interests are adversely affected by a court’s decision.
A temporary restraining order is not a final appealable order.
Individuals subject to a North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 58 vexatious litigant prefiling order may not raise issues on appeal concerning motions they did not have authority to file.
Interest of K.J.2023 ND 182 Docket No.: 20230290 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A district court judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Isac v. State2023 ND 181 Docket No.: 20230100 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:When a post-conviction relief applicant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must satisfy a two-prong test by showing (1) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the applicant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Under the second prong, the district court is required to determine what the applicant would have done had he received competent advice—not what he would have done with the benefit of hindsight.
Witnesses must testify from personal knowledge. Witnesses may use notes to refresh their recollection, but they may not testify directly from the notes. A district court has broad discretion to control the use of evidence to refresh memory.
State v. Johnson2023 ND 180 Docket No.: 20230083 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFF. (MISDEMEANOR) Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:Terrorizing circumstances are threats of violence or dangerous acts made with an intent to induce fear. No precise words are necessary to convey a threat, and may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion. A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken, and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited.
Williamson v. State2023 ND 179 Docket No.: 20230069 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:An order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Cahoon2023 ND 178 Docket No.: 20230008 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A district court judgment following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Weah2023 ND 177 Docket No.: 20220361 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: ASSAULT Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A district court’s judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault with permanent loss or impairment and reckless endangerment with extreme indifference is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Powell2023 ND 176 Docket No.: 20230107 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A criminal judgment entered following denial of a motion to suppress evidence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Hanson2023 ND 175 Docket No.: 20230053 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A criminal judgment and sentencing for child abuse and child neglect are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Entzel2023 ND 174 Docket No.: 20230078 Filing Date: 9/28/2023 Case Type: HOMICIDE Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A criminal judgment entered after a jury conviction of conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
Highlight:We exercise our supervisory jurisdiction rarely and cautiously to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases in which no adequate alternative remedy exists.
A party who files a complaint must serve notice of filing on the other parties, except upon defaulting parties.
When a defendant has not appeared, he is not entitled to be notified of the motion for default judgment.
When the plaintiff declares the defendant did not answer or otherwise appear and its claim is for a sum certain—as evidenced through declaration and written instrument—the court abuses its discretion by failing to direct entry of default judgment.
Highlight:A planned unit development is a form of zoning ordinance which is interpreted under rules of statutory construction. Where an incorporated reference is subsequently modified or repealed, that change does not alter the meaning of the law incorporating that reference.
A party is not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to suit when the issue concerns the interpretation of an unambiguous statute and does not need the exercise of an agency’s expertise in making factual decisions.
The interpretation of a restrictive covenant is generally governed by rules for interpretation of a contract. Restrictive covenants will be given full effect when clearly established.
Whether a fiduciary relationship exists is generally a question of fact, dependent upon a showing of special circumstances.
Violating a requirement in the planned unit development or restrictive covenants constitutes an “unlawful” act for purposes of a statutory private nuisance claim. Homeowners do not have a right to sunlight and open space on adjacent properties.
Conduct that constitutes a breach of contract does not subject the actor to an action in tort for negligence, unless the conduct also constitutes a breach of an independent duty that did not arise from the contract. Section 9-10-01, N.D.C.C., codifies the general duty of care to abstain from injuring property or infringing upon rights. Neighbors who are members of a homeowners’ association owe each other an ordinary duty of care. A homeowners’ association owes homeowners reasonable care in approving construction plans. The fact finder determines how a reasonable homeowners’ association would act under the circumstances and whether the association exercised reasonable care in performing its duties. Generally, a contractor is relieved of liability if he followed the contractee’s plans or specifications which were defective or insufficient, and the defect or insufficiency caused the damage.
Slander is a false and unprivileged publication other than libel. Intentional interference with contract requires a breach of contract. Unlawful interference with business requires an independently tortious or otherwise unlawful act of interference. Negligence requires a breach of duty.