Supreme Court opinions: Oct. 29 Friday, November 1, 2019
The Supreme Court has issued 17 new opinions. Summaries of the non-per curiam opinions are below.
To see an opinion, click on the "View Opinion" button. Opinions will display in a printable format. Hyperlinks to all North Dakota opinions and rules cited in the 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
Estate of Blikre 2019 ND 257 Highlight: A holographic will is valid if the signature and material portions of the document are in the testator’s handwriting. |
Matter of Didier 2019 ND 263 Highlight: A district court must find a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be taken into account with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Inappropriate behavior not deemed actual misconduct requiring a formal sanction may be considered in determining an inability to control behavior. Conduct showing more than just a lack of progress, but a lack of participation, is sufficient to show an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. |
State v. Grzadzieleski 2019 ND 254 Highlight: The State may not appeal from an in limine order excluding evidence based on the physician-patient privilege under N.D.R.Ev. 503. |
State v. Vetter 2019 ND 262 Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ev. 201(b)(2), a court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. |
Clarke v. Taylor 2019 ND 251 Highlight: A district court’s domestic violence protection order is affirmed. |
Interest of K.V. 2019 ND 255 Highlight: Juvenile court findings of delinquency for fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and reckless driving are not clearly erroneous and are affirmed. A juvenile court finding of delinquency for criminal trespass is reversed due to insufficient evidence. |
State v. Baltrusch 2019 ND 259 Highlight: To support a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction, the defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt. |
Fettig v. Fettig, et al. 2019 ND 261 Highlight: Real property can be gifted to a minor if there is an intention by the donor to then and there give the property to the donee, coupled with an actual or constructive delivery of the property to the donee, and acceptance of the property by the donee. |
Interest of J.B. 2019 ND 258 Highlight: When a committed individual petitions for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual, the State must prove the individual remains a sexually dangerous individual by clear and convincing evidence. |
Huerd v. General Motors, LLC 2019 ND 249 Highlight: An action brought in small claims court is subject to the doctrine of res judicata. A small claims court’s judgment cannot be appealed in district court. Unless requested by a party, oral argument on a motion under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 is not required. |
State v. G.C.H. 2019 ND 256 Highlight: The question of law certified by a North Dakota district court is not answered because it is not dispositive of the case. The North Dakota Supreme Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction to reverse the district court’s order finding a 16 and 17 year old married person was not a “child” under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(4)(b) when the offenses allegedly were committed. Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
Herman v. Herman, et al. 2019 ND 248 Highlight: N.D.C.C. § 59-10.1-03(1) requires receipt of the notice, proven through the presumption or otherwise, to begin the 120 day limitation period. The presumption under N.D.C.C. § 59-10.1-03(1) is rebuttable. |
Rocky Mountain Steel Foundations. v. Brockett Company, et al. 2019 ND 252 Highlight: A lienholder who recovers in a suit upon a bond is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee for the proceedings before the district court and for a successful appeal. |