Opinions

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.

State v. Cooper 2026 ND 68
Docket No.: 20250134
Filing Date: 3/12/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: An officer must administer the Miranda warning when a person is subject to custodial interrogation. A suspect is in custody when there is a formal arrest or restraint on the suspect's freedom of movement to the degree associated with
a formal arrest.

The "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement allows law enforcement officers to search a vehicle for illegal contraband without a warrant upon establishing probable cause the vehicle contains contraband.

Allowing a drug-sniffing dog to sniff a vehicle is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A drug-sniffing dog indicating the presence of a controlled substance establishes probable cause.

Unrelated inquiries are permitted during a stop as long as they do not prolong the stop and extend the time the individual is detained. A stop may be prolonged only if the officer has reasonable suspicion to justify detaining the individual for inquiries unrelated to the stop.

Bauer, et al. v. Adam, et al. 2026 ND 67
Docket No.: 20250249
Filing Date: 3/12/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Only judgments and decrees which constitute a final judgment of the rights of the parties and certain orders enumerated by statute are appealable.

For each issue, the appellant must cite to the record showing that the issue was preserved for review or state the grounds for seeking review of an issue not preserved.

Under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58(3)(a), the presiding judge, on the court's own motion, may designate a litigant as a vexatious litigant. Procedural safeguards are contained within N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 providing for a specific vexatious litigant definition, appropriate notice, requisite court findings, and the pre-filing order contents. The Court reviews an order finding a litigant vexatious for an abuse of discretion.

If an appeal is frivolous, the Court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Marschner v. Marschner 2026 ND 66
Docket No.: 20250066
Filing Date: 3/4/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act 10, U.S.C. § 1408, as interpreted in Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214 (2017), an indemnification provision requiring a veteran to compensate a former spouse for retirement pay
waived in favor of disability benefits is void and unenforceable, regardless of whether the parties agreed to it.

A district court's award of spousal support calculated to restore a former spouse's lost share of waived retirement pay is merely a semantic reframing of the prohibited division of disability pay and is preempted by federal law.

Interest of B.P. 2026 ND 65
Docket No.: 20260028
Filing Date: 3/4/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of 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).

State v. Vasquez 2026 ND 64
Docket No.: 20250314
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The district court's amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Bobcat of Mandan v. Doosan Bobcat North America 2026 ND 63
Docket No.: 20250327
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A two-pronged test is used when determining whether an order is appealable. First, the order appealed from must meet one of the statutory criteria of appealability set forth in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. If it does not, our inquiry need go no further and the appeal must be dismissed. If it does, then Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., if applicable, must be complied with.

An "automatic stay" under N.D.C.C. § 51-07-01.1(3) is appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3).

The authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary and we decide whether to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.

State v. Romanyshyn 2026 ND 62
Docket No.: 20250295
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., addresses conditional guilty pleas and requires: (1) the defendant, any defendant's attorney, and the prosecuting attorney consent in writing to the conditional plea; (2) the court accept the conditional plea and enter an order; and (3) the judgment specify the plea is conditional.

Temporary remand is warranted for the district court to correct the judgment to conform with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).

Kostelecky v. Erickson, et al. 2026 ND 61
Docket No.: 20250306
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: When exercising their discretion to impose sanctions, courts should consider the impact of the imposed sanction on innocent third parties.

While district courts retain broad authority to sanction discovery violations, that authority is necessarily constrained by the overriding obligation to consider all relevant evidence bearing on the child's best interests.

When a court imposes sanctions in a case involving residential responsibility and parenting time, the court must consider whether the sanction precludes the court from receiving evidence bearing on the child's best interests.

Under the facts of this case, the court abused its discretion by imposing an evidentiary sanction that barred a parent from presenting any evidence at a trial involving residential responsibility and parenting time.