Opinions

Provins v. WSI, et al. 2022 ND 213
Docket No.: 20220060
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

State v. Dahl 2022 ND 212
Docket No.: 20210276
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, this Court merely reviews the record to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction.

Constructive possession is proven when the evidence establishes that the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance or paraphernalia.

When a defendant fails to preserve a claim of insufficient evidence, the Court may review for obvious error, which is a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Although the Court may decline review of forfeited errors when the appellant fails to argue the obvious error standard, the Court is not foreclosed from considering such errors. An error is obvious when it is a clear deviation from an applicable rule under current law.

Drug paraphernalia used, or possessed with intent to be used, to store a controlled substance does not satisfy the felony use element under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(1).

If even a properly instructed jury would have had insufficient evidence on which it could have convicted the defendant, the required remedy upon a conclusion there was insufficient evidence presented at trial is to enter a judgment of acquittal.

State v. Dahl 2022 ND 212
Docket No.: 20210276
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Dominek, et al. v. Equinor Energy, et al. 2022 ND 211
Docket No.: 20220088
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Under N.D.R.App.P.47, questions certified by a foreign court may be answered if the question could be determinative of the proceeding and there is no controlling precedent. The standard for answering questions certified by a foreign court is less stringent than the standard for answering a question certified by a state district court, which requires the question be determinative.

Section 38-08-08(1), N.D.C.C., does not require allocation of oil and gas production from one spacing unit to another.

The North Dakota Supreme Court will not answer certified questions absent development of the factual record because doing so exposes the court to the danger of improvidently deciding issues.

Dominek, et al. v. Equinor Energy, et al. 2022 ND 211
Docket No.: 20220088
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Feickert v. Feickert 2022 ND 210
Docket No.: 20220102
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Voluntarily paying a partial undisputed amount of a judgment does not waive a party’s right to appeal the remaining disputed amount or other unrelated claims. However, partial satisfaction of a judgment extinguishes the underlying claim.

A party bringing a claim for unjust enrichment must sufficiently plead facts supporting their claim that would place the other party on notice of the claim.

A party failing to provide supporting argument for their position on appeal waives the issue.

Feickert v. Feickert 2022 ND 210
Docket No.: 20220102
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Interest of A.M.K. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2022 ND 209
Docket No.: 20220316
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s orders for continuing hospitalization and involuntary treatment with medication are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of A.M.K. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2022 ND 209
Docket No.: 20220316
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

State v. Moses 2022 ND 208
Docket No.: 20220101
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Statutes are interpreted to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and construed to avoid rendering part of the statute mere surplusage.

Under the firearm prohibition statute, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm for five years after being convicted of a felony. A prior juvenile adjudication of a delinquent act equivalent to a felony qualifies as a predicate felony conviction.

If two or more statutes relating to the same subject matter conflict, we attempt to give meaningful effect to each without rendering one or the other useless. If the conflict is irreconcilable, the special provision must generally prevail and be construed as an exception to the general provision.

A firearm prohibition is a collateral consequence, and there is no constitutional requirement that a defendant or juvenile delinquent be notified of such prohibition or the possibility of a future firearm conviction for violating the prohibition.

A law is not unconstitutionally vague if the challenged language, when measured by common understanding and practice, gives adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for fair administration of the law.