Opinions

Diop v. Altepeter, et al. 2025 ND 160
Docket No.: 20240285
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from an order finding the appellant in contempt of court in a divorce and parental responsibility action is dismissed as untimely.

Another contempt finding and the first amended judgment appealed in the same matter are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Duchaine v. State 2025 ND 159
Docket No.: 20250118
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - 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)(7).

State v. Pittsley 2025 ND 158
Docket No.: 20250009
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of child neglect is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Interest of K.I.B. 2025 ND 157
Docket No.: 20250060
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Delinquency
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The State is an aggrieved party under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-26 and may appeal a juvenile court's ruling exempting a juvenile adjudicated delinquent as a sexual offender from registration as a sexual offender.

This Court reviews a juvenile court's interpretation of a statute de novo. When interpreting a statute, the primary goal is to determine the intent of the statute by looking to the statute's language as a whole and giving meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence.

Section 12.1-32-15(2), N.D.C.C., does not allow the court to deviate from the sexual offender registration requirement for juveniles adjudicated delinquent under N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-27.2.

Section 29-28-35, N.D.C.C., does not apply to appeals of juvenile cases because the Juvenile Court Act controls procedure in juvenile cases.

Goolsby v. Crosby 2025 ND 156
Docket No.: 20250194
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Kraft v. State 2025 ND 155
Docket No.: 20250180
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days.

A motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1 is analogous to and governed by the procedure for a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. When the State moves for summary disposition, the motion is treated as a N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment, which gives the petitioner thirty days to respond.

Kraft v. State 2025 ND 155
Docket No.: 20250181
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motion to summarily dismiss an application for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09 is analogous to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When the State moves for summary dismissal, the motion is treated like a N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion subject to the response times in N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a), which is 14 days.

A motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09.1 is analogous to and governed by the procedure for a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. When the State moves for summary disposition, the motion is treated as a N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 motion for summary judgment, which gives the petitioner thirty days to respond.

State v. Benter 2025 ND 154
Docket No.: 20240287
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: In a criminal case, a defendant's notice of appeal must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order being appealed. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the appellate court.

State v. Grewe 2025 ND 153
Docket No.: 20250010
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: An appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case was untimely where it was not filed within 30 days of the judgment of conviction and no motion to extend the time to file the notice of appeal was filed. The appeal from an order denying a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion was not appealable in the absence of a timely appeal from the judgment of conviction. The appeal is dismissed in accord with State v. Jenkins, 339 N.W.2d 567 (N.D. 1983).

Campbell v. State 2025 ND 152
Docket No.: 20250008
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under the Strickland test, an applicant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must prove two elements: (1) that their counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Courts need not analyze both elements of the Strickland test and should resolve the case by addressing a single prong when possible.

Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1)(e), postconviction relief is available when evidence, not previously presented and heard, exists requiring vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.

Applications based on newly discovered evidence are reviewed as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.

To prevail on a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the defendant must show: (1) the evidence was discovered after trial, (2) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence, (3) the newly discovered evidence is material to the issues at trial, and (4) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely result in an acquittal. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the court's denial of the motion unless the court has abused its discretion.

Interest of J.L. 2025 ND 151
Docket No.: 20250128
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of J.L. 2025 ND 151
Docket No.: 20250129
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of J.L. 2025 ND 151
Docket No.: 20250130
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of J.L. 2025 ND 151
Docket No.: 20250131
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order finding children in need of protection and finding social services engaged in active efforts to place the children in an Indian home as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Vasquez 2025 ND 150
Docket No.: 20250196
Filing Date: 9/25/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for preventing arrest or discharge of other duties, driving while license is suspended, and failure to transfer title is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250300
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250301
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250302
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

State v. Lee, et al. 2025 ND 148
Docket No.: 20250136
Filing Date: 9/11/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

A party's notice of withdrawal of a motion after an order ruling on the merits of the motion has no effect on the duly issued order.

Unless an exception applies, when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor or infraction, and the injured party receives satisfaction for the injury, the court may terminate the criminal proceedings. Compromise between a defendant and injured party is one way in which a prosecution may be terminated; voluntary dismissal by the prosecuting attorney under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a) is another way. While the court has discretion in both instances, the compromise statutes do not prevent the State from moving for dismissal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a), the prosecuting attorney may not dismiss an indictment, information or complaint except on motion and with the court's approval. The prosecutor should be denied a dismissal, if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith, contrary to public interest, or intentionally harassing the defendant. The public interest exception does not allow the court to deny dismissal because it has the potential to undermine some broader societal concern. The court abuses its discretion by denying the State's unopposed motion to dismiss when the State acts in good faith and there has been no indication it has abdicated its prosecutorial duties.

State v. Lee, et al. 2025 ND 148
Docket No.: 20250137
Filing Date: 9/11/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

A party's notice of withdrawal of a motion after an order ruling on the merits of the motion has no effect on the duly issued order.

Unless an exception applies, when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor or infraction, and the injured party receives satisfaction for the injury, the court may terminate the criminal proceedings. Compromise between a defendant and injured party is one way in which a prosecution may be terminated; voluntary dismissal by the prosecuting attorney under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a) is another way. While the court has discretion in both instances, the compromise statutes do not prevent the State from moving for dismissal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a), the prosecuting attorney may not dismiss an indictment, information or complaint except on motion and with the court's approval. The prosecutor should be denied a dismissal, if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith, contrary to public interest, or intentionally harassing the defendant. The public interest exception does not allow the court to deny dismissal because it has the potential to undermine some broader societal concern. The court abuses its discretion by denying the State's unopposed motion to dismiss when the State acts in good faith and there has been no indication it has abdicated its prosecutorial duties.

Northwest Landowners Association, et al. v. State, et al. 2025 ND 147
Docket No.: 20240298
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: There is a difference between a claim asserting a law is facially unconstitutional and a claim asserting an unconstitutional facial taking occurred. An ordinary facial challenge requires a plaintiff to prove the legislature exceeded a constitutional limitation when it enacted a law, and consequently the law on its face violates the constitution. A facial taking claim, on the other hand, is a specific type of facial challenge that asserts the mere enactment of a statute constitutes a taking.

Whether a claim is a facial or as-applied challenge is not of great import when deciding whether it has accrued for purposes of a statute of limitation. The accrual date of a facial or as- applied challenge is identical to the accrual date of other substantive claims—the date upon which the plaintiff's injury occurred and the cause of action became complete. A case alleging facial unconstitutionality is ripe not simply when the law is passed but, just like an asapplied challenge, when the government acts pursuant to that law and adversely
affects the plaintiff's rights.

Regulatory takings are different than physical takings. An important distinction between physical and regulatory takings claims is the accrual date. In a regulatory taking, it is passage of the ordinance that injures a property's value or usefulness. But a physical taking causes injury when the property itself is taken.

Garaas, et al. v. Continental Resources, et al. 2025 ND 146
Docket No.: 20250046
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Deeds are interpreted in the same manner as contracts. In construing a deed, the primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the grantor's intent.

A grantor's intent must be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. When a deed is unambiguous, the parties' intent is determined from the instrument itself.

The "safe harbor" provision in N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1(1) applies when there is a dispute of title that would affect distribution of royalty payments.

Determining who is a prevailing party for an award of disbursements is a question of law, subject to de novo review, while the question of the amount allowed for disbursements and costs is one of fact, subject to an abuse of discretion standard.

Adoption of A.B.G.R. 2025 ND 145
Docket No.: 20250232
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Adoption of A.R.G.-R. 2025 ND 145
Docket No.: 20250233
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NEJD 2025 ND 144
Docket No.: 20250227
Filing Date: 8/18/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Devils Lake

State v. Hendricks 2025 ND 143
Docket No.: 20240304
Filing Date: 8/14/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: If a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on different grounds from the claim asserted on appeal, the issue was not preserved for review.

Section 14-09-22.1, N.D.C.C., does not limit the offense of child neglect to passive conduct. A "willful" failure to provide proper parental care may encompass the deliberate choice to act or to refrain from acting.

It is the responsibility of the party, not the district court, to object to evidence the party believes is inadmissible.

Anne Carlsen Center v. LeFevre, et al. 2025 ND 142
Docket No.: 20250168
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Supervision
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A petition for supervisory writ is granted.

In ruling on a motion to compel, the district court must state the reasons for its conclusions with sufficient specificity to afford a clear understanding of its decision and allow for meaningful review.

The withholding party's burden to prove an asserted privilege or protection applies presumes a burden to submit the disputed documents for in-camera review in a form that is readily intelligible to the district court. If the district court is unable to discern the content of a document, it may require the withholding party to assist the court, including by providing a readable copy.

Section 50-25.1-11, N.D.C.C., designates as confidential a "report made under this chapter, as well as any other information obtained." Although "report made" and "information obtained" lack a subject, in context it is clear that the statute refers to reports made to the Department of Health and Human Services. Even if information in a document is later included in a report subject to N.D.C.C. ch. 50-25.1, it is the report and the other information obtained by the Department in association with that report that is confidential.

Documents do not become confidential or privileged by attaching them to a confidential report or privileged email. The lawyer-client privilege protects confidential communications themselves and not necessarily the facts underlying the communications.

A party asserting work-product privilege may not rely on "in anticipation of litigation" as magic words that automatically protect a disputed document from disclosure. The inchoate possibility, or even the likely chance of litigation, does not give rise to work product. To justify work product protection, the threat of litigation must be real and imminent.

Tamm v. Gatzke, et al. 2025 ND 141
Docket No.: 20250062
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: An easement implied from pre-existing use requires unity of title of the dominant and servient tenement and a subsequent severance; apparent, permanent, and continuous use; and, the easement must be important or necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement.

An easement by necessity arises where there is a conveyance of a part of a tract of land of such nature and extent that either the part conveyed or the part retained is shut off from access to a road to the outer world by the land from which it is severed or by this land and the land of strangers.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.

A motion for summary judgment is not an opportunity to conduct a mini-trial, and summary judgment is inappropriate if the court must draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support the judgment.

A party seeking an implied easement has the burden of proving the existence of the easement by clear and convincing evidence.

Interest of A.W. 2025 ND 140
Docket No.: 20250141
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: An aggrieved party, including the state or a subdivision of the state, may appeal from a final order, judgment, or decree of the juvenile court to the supreme court by filing written notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the order, judgment, or decree, or within any further time the supreme court grants, after entry of the order, judgment, or decree.

Interlocutory orders are appealable if it is deemed to be an appeal from a subsequently entered consistent final order or judgment.

The party requesting review of the findings and order of a judicial referee by a district court judge must give notice to all other parties. If a party is represented by counsel, all documents filed with the court must be signed by the attorney of record.

Issues not briefed on appeal are waived.

Juliuson v. Johnson, et al. 2025 ND 139
Docket No.: 20240338
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Issues not briefed are deemed abandoned.

A district court's decision on a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50 to deny or grant judgment as a matter of law is based upon whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, leads to but one conclusion as to the verdict about which there can be no reasonable difference of opinion.

A district court's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law is fully reviewable on appeal.

The doctrine of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to the insured-insurer relationship.

A breach of contract, even if intentional, malicious, or in bad faith, does not give rise to a breach of contract claim or turn a breach of contract claim into a tort claim absent proof of independent tortious conduct.

State v. Erickstad 2025 ND 138
Docket No.: 20240300
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court shall correct an illegal sentence at any time with notice.

A district court must provide notice to all parties before amending a sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(2).

Rademacher v. State 2025 ND 137
Docket No.: 20250023
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Issues not raised in an application for postconviction relief cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

"Fitness to proceed" and "lack of criminal responsibility" are separate and distinct concepts. The process for an examination or evaluation for fitness to proceed and lack of criminal responsibility differ.

Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires, "In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury . . . the [district] court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law."

A petitioner in a postconviction relief proceeding carries a heavy burden to establish a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel's error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Generally, a petitioner must provide more than conclusory allegations to meet that burden.

Liquid Hospitality v. Bd. of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo 2025 ND 136
Docket No.: 20240347
Filing Date: 7/31/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court erred in finding Fargo Municipal Code § 25-1509.2 to be unconstitutionally vague.

Axvig, et al. v. Czajkowski, et al. 2025 ND 135
Docket No.: 20250004
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court misinterpreted a contract for deed by allowing a party to proceed with a cancellation action without first providing the other party notice of the default and time to cure the default as required by the contract.

A remedy is the appropriate legal form of relief by which that remediable right ay be enforced. It is the form of relief by which the right is enforced and is not part of the cause of action.

Cancellation of the contract for deed is one remedy, which may be achieved by alternative methods: 1) a statutory cancellation under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-18; or 2) a court action.

Cancellation of a contract for deed by action is an action in equity, and the court must base its decision on equitable principles. In the absence of express terms specifying notice and redemption, an action for cancellation has a presumption that notice and redemption are appropriate and require specific findings weighing the equity of a notice and redemption period.

State v. Berkley 2025 ND 134
Docket No.: 20240351
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: We interpret statutes to give meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence, and do not adopt a construction which would render part of the statute mere surplusage. Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to determine the Legislature's intended meaning.

If, after applying our statutory and doctrinal canons, the plain or ordinary language suggests two plausible and rational meanings, then the statute is ambiguous. When a statute is ambiguous, we may consider extrinsic aids, including legislative history, along with the language of the statute, to understand the Legislature's intended meaning.

Section 12.1-32-15(2), N.D.C.C., allows the court to deviate from the registration for "crimes against children" if the court first finds the individual has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child, and the individual did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct in the commission of the offense, unless the offense is described in section 12.1-29-02, or the offense is described in section 12.1-18-01 or 12.1-18-02 and the person is not the parent of the victim. The phrase "and the person is not the parent of the victim" applies to section 12.1-18-01 and 12.1-18-02, but not section 12.1-29-02.

State v. Solomon 2025 ND 133
Docket No.: 20250021
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under the speedy trial statute, trials must begin within 90 days of invoking this right, unless the court finds "good cause" for delay. Courts consider four factors when determining good cause: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted the right, and (4) prejudice to the defendant.

Even if a district court doesn't explicitly discuss these factors, we will uphold the court's decision if applying the factors would reach the same result.

It is unnecessary to seek judicial notice of matters outside the record to rebut allegations contrary to the existing record.

WSI v. Boechler, et al. 2025 ND 132
Docket No.: 20240165
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1, a president of a corporation is not personally liable for penalties imposed due to a failure to file payroll reports.

North Dakota Century Code § 65-04-26.1(3) requires Workforce Safety and Insurance to make an administrative determination regarding personal liability. A decision regarding personal liability under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1 applies prospectively thus establishing personal liability for future sums owed by the corporation.

Bang, et al. v. Continental Resources 2025 ND 131
Docket No.: 20240239
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Under a usual oil and gas lease, the lessee, in developing the leased premises, is entitled to use of the land reasonably necessary in producing the oil. Even though the surface rights of the lessee may arise by implication, it is important to note that lessee's rights are primarily governed by the specific grant of rights in the lease.

A district court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence at trial, which will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

An appellate court's conclusion a trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain evidence in one case does not mean another trial court abused its discretion by not admitting similar evidence in a different case.

The district court has discretion to determine an appropriate sanction for a party's failure to supplement interrogatories and may exclude expert testimony that is beyond the scope of a party's responses to interrogatories.

The district court is not required to give instructions in the specific language requested by a party if the instructions given fairly and adequately inform the jury of the law.

State v. Kennedy 2025 ND 130
Docket No.: 20240346
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A party can invite error during voir dire.

It is the responsibility of the parties, not the district court, to object to evidence a party believes is inadmissible.

A party may intentionally not object to potentially inadmissible evidence for numerous strategic reasons. The court ruling on the admissibility of evidence when not invited to by a party can disrupt a party's trial presentation and sabotage a party's trial strategy.

Attorneys have an obligation to ensure that the arguments they present are factually and legally supported.

Whether to substitute appointed counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.

Carvalho v. Carvalho, et al. 2025 ND 129
Docket No.: 20250086
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court must perform an adequate analysis for an appellate court to determine the basis for its decision.

Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.

Bazile v. State 2025 ND 128
Docket No.: 20250015
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order denying an amended application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

An application for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1)(e) is reviewed as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.

Section § 29-32.1-01 ("Remedy - To whom available - Conditions) limits the availability of postconviction relief to those grounds listed under subsection 1. An applicant for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 must base his application on the grounds provided under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1).

Res judicata bars relitigation of the same claim or claims that were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.

Interest of B.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250159
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.

Interest of I.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250160
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.

Equinor Energy v. NDIC, et al. 2025 ND 126
Docket No.: 20240357
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Industrial Commission
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An order of the North Dakota Industrial Commission is vacated for lack of jurisdiction.

Adjudicatory jurisdiction does not necessarily inhere in an agency's regulatory jurisdiction. A public administrative body has such adjudicatory jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute. The jurisdiction of an administrative agency is dependent upon the terms of the statute.

Section 38-08-04, N.D.C.C., grants the Commission broad regulatory jurisdiction over disposal of saltwater, but it does not expressly or by necessary implication grant jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under contracts relating to saltwater disposal.

The "costs" of "operation of a well on a spacing unit" under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2) include production costs but exclude post-production costs. The Commission's jurisdiction to determine proper costs under § 38-08-08(2) thus extends only to production costs and excludes post-production costs.

Salt-water gathering is a post-production cost outside of the Commission's jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2), and the Commission thus lacks jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2) to adjudicate disputes between private parties over saltwater gathering costs.

Gomez v. State 2025 ND 125
Docket No.: 20250058
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final.

An application for postconviction relief may be summarily dismissed if commenced outside the two-year period for filing and does not meet an exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3).

Matter of Quilt 2025 ND 124
Docket No.: 20240360
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court's order granting a continuance to allow a witness to appear by reliable electronic means was affirmed.

Interest of Wedmore 2025 ND 123
Docket No.: 20240303
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court's order granting a motion for a witness to appear by electronic means is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

A district court's order finding an individual qualifies as a sexually dangerous individual must contain findings that the individual has a serious difficulty controlling their behavior.

Fagnon v. Ngaima 2025 ND 122
Docket No.: 20250074
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court may grant a disorderly conduct restraining order when a petitioner shows there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.

A district court's findings of fact must be sufficient to enable an appellate court to understand the factual determinations made by the district court and the basis for its conclusions of law. The district court's findings are adequate if the appellate court can discern from them the factual basis for the district court's decision.

There must be logical limits on the time and distance factors when a restraining order is at issue.

Toppenberg v. Toppenberg, et al. 2025 ND 121
Docket No.: 20250017
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: According to N.D.C.C. § 14-09-08.4(4) and N.D. Admin. Code. § 75-0204.1-07(7), party seeking modification of a child support order that was entered at least one year before the filing of the motion has the burden of proving that the existing level of support does not conform to the guidelines and that the change in employment was not made for the purpose of reducing the obligor's child support obligation.

A proper finding of net income is essential to determine the correct amount of child support under the child support guidelines. Net income is the total gross annual income less certain amounts available for deduction under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(6). Gross income is defined as "income from any source, in any form," except for some specific exclusions under N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-01(4)(a).

Sanda v. Sanda 2025 ND 120
Docket No.: 20240352
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: When a divorce is granted, the district court shall make an equitable distribution of the property and debts of the parties. All property held by the parties, whether it is held individually or jointly, is deemed marital property, and the court must determine the property's total value before making an equitable distribution. This includes separate property, or property exempt from being included as marital property, that has been commingled or placed into a joint bank account.

If the parties do not mutually agree upon a valuation date, the valuation date for marital property and debt is sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date. If there is a substantial change in value of an asset or debt between the date of valuation and the date of trial, the district court may adjust the valuation of that asset or debt as necessary to effect an equitable distribution and shall make specific findings that another date of valuation is fair and equitable.

A property distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, but the district court must explain a substantial disparity. The property's origin may be considered when equitably dividing the estate, along with economic fault and dissipation of assets.

A premarital agreement is a contract that is interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the parties' mutual intent at the time of contracting, usually in relation to the disposition of property upon divorce.

We do not reweigh conflicts in the evidence, and we give due regard to the district court's opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.

Interest of J.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250036
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of A.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250038
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of A.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250039
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of L.O. 2025 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250037
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court judgment finding the children are in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Reciprocal Discipline of Odegaard 2025 ND 118
Docket No.: 20250115
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Reciprocal
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer disbarred

Anderson v. Anderson 2025 ND 117
Docket No.: 20240343
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A divorce judgment entered after a bench trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Roth, et al. v. Meyer, et al. 2025 ND 116
Docket No.: 20240324
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms.

When a finding requires proof by clear and convincing evidence in the trial court, our review on appeal applies the clearly erroneous standard under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a) in the context of the required standard of proof.

The burden of proving adverse possession rests with the person alleging it and must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Beyond the elevated burden of clear and convincing evidence, "special rigor" is required to prove adverse possession against a family member.

Adverse possession requires possession hostile to the true owner—meaning possession that is inconsistent with the owner's rights and gives notice of adverse claims.

For purposes of establishing adverse possession, a claimant's subjective belief he owned the property is not relevant.

Because the notice requirement is a fundamental part of an adverse possession claim, a claimant cannot establish a prima facie case by relying solely on his testimony as to his subjective hostile intent. He must introduce evidence that such intent was objectively made manifest by his observable words or actions.

The absence of an agreement does not establish hostility for an adverse possession claim. Whether an agreement existed is relevant, but the presence or absence of an agreement is not the essential finding.

Recorded documents cannot establish adverse possession because they are not evidence of hostile acts for purposes of adverse possession.

Unjust enrichment requires (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment; and (5) an absence of a remedy provided by law.

State v. Gramkow 2025 ND 115
Docket No.: 20250034
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Carpenter v. Southbay Homeowners Association 2025 ND 114
Docket No.: 20240327
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The right to enforce a restriction may be lost by waiver. A waiver occurs when a person voluntarily and intentionally relinquishes a known right or privilege. Generally, the existence of a waiver is a question of fact, but if circumstances of an alleged waiver are admitted or clearly established and reasonable persons can draw only one conclusion from those circumstances, the existence of waiver is a question of law. Whether a waiver has occurred depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.

A party may waive a condition despite the presence of a non-waiver provision. But, to establish a non-waiver provision is not enforceable, the party asserting a waiver must show a clear intent to waive both the waiver clause and the underlying contract provision.

A court may award just damages and single or double costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, if it determines an appeal is frivolous. Affirming a summary judgment does not necessarily mean the appeal is frivolous.

Interest of Hicks 2025 ND 113
Docket No.: 20250025
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's order denying a petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Glaum v. Drake 2025 ND 112
Docket No.: 20250005
Filing Date: 6/18/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: When claims are fully adjudicated on the merits following a bench trial, the district court correctly enters a judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

The judgment of dismissal with prejudice is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall 2025 ND 111
Docket No.: 20250045
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A party does not have a right to appeal if there is no final judgment or proper N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification.

Kemp, et al. v. Kvislen, et al. 2025 ND 110
Docket No.: 20240356
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment denying a petition for nonparent custody or visitation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Gonzalez v. State 2025 ND 109
Docket No.: 20250019
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Generally, attacking an expired sentence is a moot argument. When the criminal judgment does not include a term of probation, the expired sentence does not continue to have collateral consequences. When a term of imprisonment has been completed, any additional credit for time served is academic and irrelevant. The Court does not render advisory opinions, and an appeal will be dismissed if the issues become moot or academic, leaving no actual controversy to be determined.

State v. Landsberger 2025 ND 108
Docket No.: 20240255
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Jury instructions are fully reviewable on appeal and are reviewed as a whole to determine if they correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law.

Jury instructions will not be reversed unless the instructions as a whole are erroneous, relate to a central subject in the case, and affect a substantial right of the accused.

Interest of M.K. 2025 ND 107
Docket No.: 20250140
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
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. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

State v. Lampert 2025 ND 106
Docket No.: 20240271
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A jury's verdict was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). A district court's order was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Weber v. Pennington 2025 ND 105
Docket No.: 20240323
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party seeking modification of primary residential responsibility two years after entry of the prior order establishing primary residential responsibility must establish a prima facie case justifying modification.

A party must show a material change in circumstances and either a general decline in the condition of the child or that the material change has adversely affected the child.

A party moving for primary residential responsibility is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if new facts have arisen since the prior order constituting a material change of circumstances, and if modification serves the best interests of the child.

Parents have a mutual responsibility to provide support for their children regardless of if the need arises during a parent's specified parenting time. A party must show a child has been adversely affected for there to be a material change in circumstances which warrants modification of the residential responsibility order.

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 104
Docket No.: 20240350
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court order extending placement of a child in the custody and control of the Grand Forks County Human Service Zone for a period of twelve months after finding the child is a child in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Leingang 2025 ND 103
Docket No.: 20240243
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Issues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate plain error which affected his substantial rights. However, if a party fails to argue obvious error, it is difficult for this Court to conclude this burden has been satisfied and this Court need not address it further.

Under Rule 1004(a), N.D.R.Ev., an original is not required, and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith.

Interest of D.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250111
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250112
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Interest of M.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250113
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Severson v. Gupta, et al. 2025 ND 101
Docket No.: 20240292
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An appeal from a district court judgment granting a motion for summary judgment is reviewed under the de novo standard.

N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 allows a court to grant summary judgment for prompt and expeditious disposition of a controversy without a trial if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and if no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving disputed facts would not alter the result.

A district court did not err granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of medical malpractice because the plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit containing an expert opinion as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46.

Holm v. Holm 2025 ND 100
Docket No.: 20240246
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: This Court may summarily affirm judgments and orders when briefs do not meet the minimum requirements of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Under the applicable rules, if an electronically filed document is rejected, the tolling of the filing does not change the date of service, which is the date the document was transmitted.

The statutory default valuation date under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) is "sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date," not the date of trial.

When a court uses the parties' mutually agreed-to valuations, the court's finding of a different valuation date is harmless as to those assets and debts.

A district court places a value on martial property based on the evidence presented by the parties. When the court is "not given much information" regarding the value of a marital asset, the court's decision is limited by the parties' failure to provide information.

State v. Weltikol 2025 ND 99
Docket No.: 20240336
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

State v. Lewellyn 2025 ND 98
Docket No.: 20240295
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: To determine whether a defendant's right to counsel has been violated, this Court has developed a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the defendant's waiver was voluntary; and (2) whether the defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent. A defendant may indicate a voluntary desire for self-representation with an unequivocal statement or with conduct that is the functional equivalent of such a statement. A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends on the facts and circumstances and requires the defendant to be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so the record establishes the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.

Motions for continuance must be promptly filed as soon as the grounds are known and will be granted only for good cause shown. This Court will not reverse a district court's decision to deny a continuance absent an abuse of discretion.

State v. Lewellyn 2025 ND 97
Docket No.: 20240294
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: This Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed.

A party waives an error when the party is given the opportunity to address it and intentionally relinquishes the opportunity.

Van Beek v. Van Beek, et al. 2025 ND 96
Docket No.: 20240319
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court may consider economic misconduct as a basis for an unequal distribution of the marital estate. However, this Court has not previously recognized economic misconduct as a basis for increasing the marital estate through "potential" income or by imputing income.

Attorney's fees awarded under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-29(4) against a perpetrator of domestic violence extends to the recovery for the costs and attorney's fees incurred in a subsequent appeal.

ICON HD v. National Sports Opportunity Partners, et al. 2025 ND 95
Docket No.: 20240265
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party must include affirmative defenses in its responsive pleading.

A party may have privity with another party that bars new litigation under res judicata.

Releases contained in a settlement agreement are subject to normal rules of contract interpretation.

Nagle v. Nagle 2025 ND 94
Docket No.: 20240260
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of that judgment.

A district court considers the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when distributing marital property. The "duration of the marriage" factor is only one factor and is the length of the marriage being dissolved by the court, irrespective of whether there was a prior marriage or marriages with the same party or another person.

In a short-term marriage, the district court may return to the parties what they brought into the marriage, but the division of property and debt must be equitable.

Matter of Robinson 2025 ND 93
Docket No.: 20250057
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A person with a felony conviction petitioning for a name change must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the name change request is not based upon an intent to defraud or mislead, is made in good faith, will not cause injury to an individual, and will not compromise public safety.

ND Indoor RV Park v. State, et al. 2025 ND 92
Docket No.: 20240293
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The right to appeal is governed by statute, and without a statutory basis to hear an appeal, we do not have jurisdiction and we must dismiss the appeal.

This Court's authority to issue supervisory writs is derived from Art. VI, § 2, N.D. Const., which vests this Court with appellate and original jurisdiction with authority to issue, hear, and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary to properly exercise its jurisdiction. This Court exercises its discretionary authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only in cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

Public officials are protected by qualified immunity unless it is shown that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

To prove a substantive due process violation, one must establish a constitutionally protected property interest and that a public official used their power in such an arbitrary and oppressive way that it shocks the conscience.

To prove a procedural due process violation, one must establish that: (1) a public official deprived them of some life, liberty, or property interest, and (2) the deprivation of that interest was done without due process. Procedural due process necessitates a notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally appropriate if the plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies.

State v. Taylor 2025 ND 91
Docket No.: 20240033
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The omission of a single juror's response to a jury poll in a trial transcript does not establish a violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when the record sufficiently demonstrates the existence of other safeguards ensuring that the jury was properly impaneled and returned a unanimous verdict free of coercion or pressure.

The district court has wide discretion over the mode and order of presenting evidence, and over the use of extrinsic evidence to refresh memory or impeach a witness based on a prior inconsistent statement.

A sentencing decision will only be vacated if the district court acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NECJD 2025 ND 90
Docket No.: 20250094
Filing Date: 4/30/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, SCJD 2025 ND 89
Docket No.: 20250083
Filing Date: 4/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Bismarck

Fowler v. Fowler, et al. 2025 ND 88
Docket No.: 20240308
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An attorney's fees sanction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 must comply with safeguards in the rule.

A court abuses its discretion by deeming an action frivolous if the claim is grounded in a good faith argument for an extension of the current interpretation of the law.

A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 if the action is not frivolous.

Zittleman v. Bibler, et al. 2025 ND 87
Docket No.: 20240196
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party's due process rights were not violated by limiting the time of a hearing and preemptively allocating time to both parties.

A district court did not abuse its discretion when it limits the length of a hearing.

If a party desires more time for a hearing than a district court has scheduled, the party must object to the time limitations or move for a continuance.

A district court is not required to conduct a best interests analysis if it finds there has been no material change in circumstances.

A district court is not required to modify a residential responsibility judgment beyond the motion requested by a party.

State v. Brown 2025 ND 86
Docket No.: 20240225
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: This Court reviews an appeal from the dismissal of a criminal charge after a preliminary hearing under the abuse of discretion standard of review.

At a preliminary hearing the State must produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of committing the crime.

Lowe v. WSI 2025 ND 85
Docket No.: 20250014
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Skobodzinski v. NDDOT 2025 ND 84
Docket No.: 20240241
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motor vehicle operator arrested for driving under the influence or being in actual physical control has a limited statutory right to consult with an attorney.

A person arrested for driving under the influence who asks to consult with an attorney before deciding to take a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the administration of the test.

Whether a person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney is determined by conducting an objective review of the totality of the circumstances.

The appropriate inquiry is whether the police afforded an arrestee a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel in a meaningful way.

State v. Burton 2025 ND 83
Docket No.: 20240286
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Statements are nontestimonial when the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency, and are considered testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Rule 901, N.D.R.Ev., provides for methods of authentication of evidence. All authentication requires is that the party offering an item of evidence produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Rule 803(1), N.D.R.Ev., provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived the event or condition. Because N.D.R.Ev. 803(1) applied, a district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a 911 call recording into evidence.

Western Equipment Finance v. Sergei Tumas Productions, et al. 2025 ND 82
Docket No.: 20240309
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).

State v. Lafromboise 2025 ND 81
Docket No.: 20240325
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: In a criminal case, the State may appeal from an order quashing an information or indictment or any count thereof. A dismissal for lack of probable cause, whether labeled an "order" or a "judgment," is appealable.

Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing an offense has been or is being committed. The State is not required to prove with absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, but rather need only produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty.

To satisfy its probable cause burden, the State must have presented reasonable grounds to believe the defendant intended to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety, or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, and threatened to commit a crime of violence or act dangerous to human life.

Dennis v. Dennis, et al. 2025 ND 80
Docket No.: 20240288
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A divorce judgment entered after a bench trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust 2025 ND 79
Docket No.: 20240313
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order for contempt is affirmed.

State v. Ziegler 2025 ND 78
Docket No.: 20240269
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Mischief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury conviction of criminal mischief and stalking is affirmed.

Without foundation testimony from the insurer, an insurer's letters regarding valuation of property constitute inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove value of the property at issue.

Under the property owner rule, an owner may testify about the value of his property even if his opinion relies upon information from another.

A district court's evidentiary error is harmless if improperly admitted evidence amounted to cumulative evidence.

Holte, et al. v. Rigby, et al. 2025 ND 77
Docket No.: 20240244
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment entered after a bench trial is reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

If a trustee who is also one of the beneficiaries commits a breach of trust, the other beneficiaries are entitled to a charge upon his beneficial interest to secure their claims against him for the breach of trust. If a trustee-beneficiary has only a life interest in trust income, however, his beneficial interest terminates upon his death. Co-trustees may not offset against a life beneficiary's distribution to recoup losses resulting from the previous life beneficiary's breach of trust.

Because an equitable lien attaches to an asset as security, it is improper to attach an equitable lien to an asset in which a deceased debtor had only a life interest.

K.L.T., et al. v. NDDHHS 2025 ND 76
Docket No.: 20240299
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Court declined to answer the following certified question of law: "Is an unmarried couple able [to] adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2)?"

Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the Court to answer questions of law certified by a state district court when two conditions are met: (A) there is a question of law involved in the proceeding that is determinative of the proceeding; and (B) it appears to the district court that there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court.

When the district court has not halted proceedings, but rather has concluded them by dismissing the complaint, the certification procedure does not apply.

State v. Allman 2025 ND 75
Docket No.: 20240250
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence and promotes respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.

Criminal defendants are presumed fit to stand trial. A defendant that lacks fitness to proceed cannot be tried, convicted, or sentenced.

Parties seeking a court order must make a motion. When a defendant is represented by counsel, the defendant generally has no authority to file pro se motions, and the court should not consider them.

A district court need give credit toward only one of the consecutive terms of imprisonment it imposes.

A speedy trial claim is evaluated under the four-part test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), considering the (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) proper assertion of the right, and (4) actual prejudice to the accused.