Opinions

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, SCJD 2025 ND 89
Docket No.: 20250083
Filing Date: 4/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Not Available

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.

WSI v. Jones, et al. 2025 ND 74
Docket No.: 20240283
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Title 65, N.D.C.C., does not specify where Workforce Safety and Insurance may appeal an administrative decision. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(3)(a), when no jurisdiction is designated by another law, appeals from administrative orders may be taken (1) to the district court of the county in which the hearing or part thereof was held, or (2) if there was no formal hearing, an appeal may be taken to the district court of Burleigh County.

State v. Ali 2025 ND 73
Docket No.: 20240281
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: This Court cannot discern a guilty plea is conditional when the judgment does not show the plea was conditional, the record does not show an order accepting the conditional plea, and there is no transcript showing the guilty plea was conditional or that the district court consented to the entry of a conditional guilty plea.

Bauer v. Job Service, et al. 2025 ND 72
Docket No.: 20250003
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming a Job Service of North Dakota decision is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

State v. Krebs 2025 ND 71
Docket No.: 20240355
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The State's appeal from a district court's judgment of acquittal entered after the court granted the defendant's renewed N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion is dismissed.

The court's ruling that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction is a true judgment of acquittal from which the State is not permitted to appeal.

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 exists.

The fact that the State may be unable to appeal the district court's ruling does not necessarily create extraordinary circumstances justifying supervisory jurisdiction.

State v. Lyons 2025 ND 70
Docket No.: 20240326
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Shively v. Shively 2025 ND 69
Docket No.: 20240284
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court's judgment is reversed and remanded for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the district court's award of primary residential responsibility and parenting time, and distribution of property.

A district court's findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions.

In cases where a party has requested equal parental responsibility, and particularly where the court finds the parties are able to effectively communicate with each other, the district court must consider equal residential responsibility
and articulate its reasoning sufficiently for appellate review.

A district court's failure to explain the absence of extended summer parenting time is error, requiring remand for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court's decision.

While the marital home need not be irrevocably set aside to an heir, we have also explained that inherited property should be set aside to the heir where fairly possible.

Kinden v. Kinden, et al. 2025 ND 68
Docket No.: 20240226
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court's order and judgment awarding primary residential responsibility is affirmed.

Section 14-09-06.6, N.D.C.C., governs modifications of primary residential responsibility. When a party moves to modify a judgment awarding joint residential responsibility, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 does not apply. The district court must instead make an original determination regarding primary residential responsibility.

We will not retry a primary residential responsibility case or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial primary residential responsibility decision merely because we might have reached a different result. A choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous, and our deferential review is especially applicable for a difficult primary residential responsibility decision involving two fit parents.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, NCJD 2025 ND 67
Docket No.: 20250044
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Minot

Williamson v. State 2025 ND 66
Docket No.: 20240155
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An affirmative defense is waived if it is not pleaded. A waived defense is not grounds for dismissal of an application for postconviction relief.

Defendants who inexcusably fail to raise all of their claims in a single postconviction proceeding misuse the postconviction process by initiating a subsequent application raising issues that could have been raised in the earlier proceeding. When the State has pleaded the defense of misuse of process, and a misuse of process has occurred, dismissal of an application for postconviction relief will be affirmed even if dismissal was ordered on other erroneous grounds.

There is no constitutional right to counsel for postconviction proceedings. Absent a constitutional rule guaranteeing effective postconviction counsel, statutory law controls. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2), ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claims are prohibited, and the court is not required to wait for the State to file a motion before dismissing such claims.

State v. Littleghost 2025 ND 65
Docket No.: 20240186
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A court's acceptance of a guilty plea must be accompanied by a factual basis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3).

A court must find that the factual basis satisfies all elements of the crime charged.

A factual basis may be established by statements from the defendant or the attorneys, from a presentence report, or by whatever other means is appropriate, from the court's record.

A court must state what it relies on for a factual basis. Statements made in violation of Miranda must be incriminating.

State v. Littleghost 2025 ND 65
Docket No.: 20240187
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A court's acceptance of a guilty plea must be accompanied by a factual basis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3).

A court must find that the factual basis satisfies all elements of the crime charged.

A factual basis may be established by statements from the defendant or the attorneys, from a presentence report, or by whatever other means is appropriate, from the court's record.

A court must state what it relies on for a factual basis. Statements made in violation of Miranda must be incriminating.

Killoran, et al. v. Kaler 2025 ND 64
Docket No.: 20240290
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: When a motion to dismiss is based on different grounds than the ground the district court relied on to dismiss a claim, the court is required to give the parties notice of its intent to dismiss on new grounds and provide an opportunity to respond.

A district court errs by misapplying the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and the standards for determining a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) when it demands more than "a short and plain statement of the claim," demands factual evidence to support the allegations, does not accept the allegations in the complaint as true, and does not construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

A complaint does not need to allege facts in anticipation of an affirmative defense.

In a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a district court must make the initial decision of whether the alleged conduct can reasonably be considered "extreme and outrageous." A court does not focus exclusively on the conduct and words, but considers the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis.

State v. Helland 2025 ND 63
Docket No.: 20240224
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A district court has inherent power to take judicial notice in a preliminary proceeding where the rules of evidence do not apply, provided certain standards are met.

The requirement in N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b) that the predicate misdemeanor offense be "committed while using or possessing a firearm" does not require the use or possession of a firearm be an element of the predicate offense. Moreover, the requirement in section 62.1-02-01(1)(b) that the predicate misdemeanor offense be "committed while using or possessing a firearm" does not require the use or possession of the firearm in committing the predicate offense be proven or admitted to in the predicate criminal action.

0n a prosecution under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b), the State has the burden to prove the defendant used or possessed a firearm when the defendant committed the predicate offense.

Under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(2)(b), a "conviction" includes a deferred imposition of sentence. A deferred imposition of sentence no longer exists when the court sets aside the verdict of guilty and dismisses the information. Section 62.1-02-01(2)(b) refers to a conviction for a deferred imposition of sentence that has not been dismissed.

Hoff v. City of Burlington 2025 ND 62
Docket No.: 20240081
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the petitioner did not establish a clear legal right to the city's issuance of a certificate of occupancy for his remodeled home that is out of compliance with the city's ordinances.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying declaratory judgment plaintiff constructed an addition to his home in accordance with the city's ordinances when the evidence supports the court's findings the plaintiff did not comply with the city's ordinances.

A total regulatory taking occurs when regulations completely deprive an owner of all economically beneficial use of an owner's property. For total regulatory takings, the complete elimination of a property's value is the determinative factor because the total deprivation of beneficial use is, from the landowner's point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation.

If a "special relationship" is established under the four elements provided by statute, a political subdivision may be liable for damages for injuries proximately caused by the negligence or wrongful act or omission of an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment.

Jones v. Jones 2025 ND 61
Docket No.: 20240212
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court's award of primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support it, or if, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

The district court does not retain continuing jurisdiction to modify a final property distribution.

Except as may be required by federal law for specific property, the valuation date for marital property and debt is the date mutually agreed upon between the parties. 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 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.

Spousal support and property distribution are interrelated and intertwined and must be considered together.

A party may not raise an issue or contention that was not previously raised or considered in the lower court for the first time on appeal.

When calculating child support, there must be evidence of the value of the items a party seeks to have included as in-kind income before the trial court may include those items in calculating an obligor's gross income.

After awarding spousal support, the district court must include that amount as a part of gross income when calculating child support.

State v. Gomez 2025 ND 60
Docket No.: 20240144
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Section 12.1-32-02(2), N.D.C.C., requires the time spent in custody to be as a result of either the charge for which the sentence was imposed or the conduct on which the charge was based.

The Court will review a claim of an illegal sentence even when the defendant did not raise this argument below by objecting at sentencing or through a motion under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a).

Any credit for good time the defendant is entitled to must be stated in the criminal judgment.

State v. Alg 2025 ND 59
Docket No.: 20240190
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Matter of Didier 2025 ND 58
Docket No.: 20240264
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State's only witness to appear remotely using reliable electronic means.

The factual basis was sufficient to conclude Didier has an inability to control his behavior. An order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Estate of Kautzman 2025 ND 57
Docket No.: 20240256
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A two-step analysis is required to determine whether an order is appealable. First, for this Court to have appellate jurisdiction, the order being appealed must meet statutory criteria for appealability. Second, for this Court to consider the appeal at this time, the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must have been satisfied.

Interest of H.N.R. 2025 ND 56
Docket No.: 20240311
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Adoption
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 14-15-11(7), a copy of the petition and the notice of the time and place for the hearing must be provided to each living parent of the adult to be adopted.

Pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 14-15-11(8), service must be accomplished in the same manner as required for service of process under the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure or in any manner the court directs.

Byrd v. State 2025 ND 55
Docket No.: 20240252
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

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

Conspiracy to commit intentional murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) is a cognizable offense.

A defendant pleads guilty by Alford plea to a cognizable offense if sufficient factual basis supports the conviction. A simultaneous Alford plea to a noncognizable offense may be harmless error.

Ceynar v. Ceynar 2025 ND 53
Docket No.: 20240194
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: In general, a lengthy marriage supports an equal division of all marital assets. The origin of the property, such as inheritance, is only one factor to consider under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.

Preserving the viability of a business operation like a family farm is important and liquidation of an ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a last resort. This laudable purpose, however, is to be achieved only if it is possible to do so without detriment to the other party. The goal of preserving a farming business does not call for a windfall for one spouse. Property divisions are based on the particular circumstances of each case. Ordering the sale of a ranch is not erroneous where the party challenging the sale only proposed an unequal division of the property and did not show he depends on the ranching operation for his livelihood; the location, quantity, or value of the minerals is relatively unknown; and the ranch would otherwise be difficult to divide.

State v. Medina 2025 ND 52
Docket No.: 20240249
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Hersha v. State 2025 ND 51
Docket No.: 20240270
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Zent v. NDDHHS 2025 ND 50
Docket No.: 20240222
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The Court affirms the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation decision to discontinue vocational rehabilitation services.

The application and interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is fully reviewable in an administrative appeal.

Administrative regulations are derivatives of statutes and are construed under rules of statutory construction. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.

The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services administers vocational rehabilitation services with federal funding through the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program. The federal statutes and attendant regulations governing the State Vocational Rehabilitation Program are clear that the provision of vocational rehabilitation services is premised on assisting disabled individuals achieve competitive integrated employment. To satisfy the requirements of competitive integrated employment, a job position must meet each of the elements articulated under 34 C.F.R. §?361.5(c)(9). Whether a job position meets the requirements of competitive integrated employment is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The clear and convincing standard applies only to eligibility determinations for vocational rehabilitation services. For all other agency determinations, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies.

Disciplinary Board v. Spencer 2025 ND 49
Docket No.: 20240339
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Suspension
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered.

Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al. 2025 ND 47
Docket No.: 20240083
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable.

When interpreting a contract, N.D.C.C. § 9-07-06 provides that the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable. If the granting clause describes the land as being an undivided interest in the land and a subsequent reservation which reserves a fractional part of the "land conveyed," or words of similar import, the reservation will be construed as reserving to the grantor the stated fractional interest of the fraction described in the granting clause.

A Duhig problem does not arise when a grantor, who owns an undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in a parcel of land via partnership, conveys the undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in the land's surface and a one-fourth (1/4) interest in land's minerals but reserves for himself the other one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals of the same land.

An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms. Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Stipulations as to the law are also invalid.

Language tying a royalty interest to another interest, such as a one-eighth royalty interest of an eight percent interest, creates a floating royalty.

State v. Williams 2025 ND 46
Docket No.: 20240203
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

When an issue is not raised at the trial court, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

A defendant's due process rights may be violated by a prosecutor's actions that constitute misconduct that has a prejudicial effect.

Hoistad v. NDDOT 2025 ND 45
Docket No.: 20240297
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The Department bears the burden of proving a chemical breath test result was fairly administered. If the Department fails to establish compliance with the approved method which goes to the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test, the Department must prove fair administration of the test through expert testimony.

When it is ready for the second breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 8000 displays, "Please Blow Until Tone Stops." The word "until" in this context signifies the point at which the driver should cease blowing into the instrument. Repeatedly blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stopped is contrary to the instructions displayed by the Intoxilyzer 8000 and, thus, the approved method.

Unless the impact of a deviation is within the knowledge of an ordinary person, it is the Department's burden to show through expert testimony whether a deviation from the approved method impacted the accuracy and reliability of the test. An ordinary person does not know what impact, if any, a subject's repeated blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stops has on the test results.

When the officer's deviations from the approved method involve the procedures for collecting and testing the sample, it raises the possibility that the deviation impacted the test result.

Even though the Department's action is not upheld by a court, a party is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) when the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision.

State v. Plentychief 2025 ND 44
Docket No.: 20240334
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Motion to reconsider order of dismissal denied.

Edwards v. State 2025 ND 43
Docket No.: 20240042
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An applicant for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-90 (1984). Under Strickland's test, the applicant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Interest of S.F. 2025 ND 42
Docket No.: 20240337
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
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), (4), and (7).

State, et al. v. Carrier 2025 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240210
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Child support determinations involve questions of law, which are fully reviewable, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and in some areas, matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

The party seeking to modify a child support obligation has the burden to provide appropriate and reliable information to support a modification of child support.

Issues are not adequately briefed when an appealing party fails to cite any supporting authority, and this Court will not consider them on appeal.

Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone 2025 ND 40
Docket No.: 20240143
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Whether an obligor can control the receipt of trust funds is not relevant to whether the funds are income for child support purposes. A court calculating a parent's child support obligation is concerned with whether the parent receives income from the trust.

The child support amount is presumed to be the correct amount, but can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence if it is in the best interest of the children and one of the criteria in N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. The court must make specific findings demonstrating why the guideline amount has been rebutted.

A court may order the obligor maintain a life insurance policy as reasonable security for child support payments.

A party moving to amend a judgment under Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., bears a heavy burden of showing sufficient grounds for disturbing the final judgment.

State v. McDermott 2025 ND 39
Docket No.: 20240150
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment with a firearm is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Peterka v. Janda, et al. 2025 ND 38
Docket No.: 20240122
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment denying and dismissing a complaint for declaratory judgment is affirmed.

A district court's findings that an individual lacked capacity to enter into the option to purchase does not preclude a finding that the individual was of unsound mind, rendering the option to purchase voidable under N.D.C.C. § 1401-02. The standard to determine whether an individual lacks capacity to enter into a contract is distinct from the standard whether a contract or other conveyance is voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02.

Gackle v. NDDOT 2025 ND 37
Docket No.: 20240247
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend driving privileges for 365 days for driving under the influence of alcohol is reversed.

The North Dakota Department of Transportation fails to show an Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered when an officer's deviation from the approved method was such that the Court cannot say, without expert advice, that the officer's deviation from the approved method did not affect the test results.

When the deviation from the approved method could not have affected the reliability or accuracy of the test results, the deviation does not render the test results inadmissible.

The approved method provides that, upon receiving a result of "Difference Too Great," an "operator shall wait another 20 minutes and ensure the subject has had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test." We interpret "before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test" consistent with the language of the approved method as a whole to require an officer to wait 20 minutes before beginning a subsequent test sequence.

A breath test record showing a period of time less than 20 minutes between test sequences cannot prima facie establish the test was administered in accordance with the approved method because the approved method expressly requires an operator to wait 20 minutes before repeating the test sequence.

Failure to wait 20 minutes before beginning the second testing sequence is the type of deviation from the approved method which may have affected the scientific accuracy or reliability of the test. Absent expert testimony on the likely effect of this deviation, the Department fails to show the test was fairly administered.

Guardianship and Conservatorship of G.I.C. 2025 ND 36
Docket No.: 20240146
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order directing distribution of trust assets is reversed.

When a trust agreement provides for specific devises of land but that land is sold prior to the trust's termination, each beneficiary is entitled to a share of the remaining proceeds of the sale of the land proportionate to the value of each beneficiary's specific devises.

Gravity Oilfield Services v. Valence Natural Gas Solutions 2025 ND 35
Docket No.: 20240184
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order granting summary judgment and judgment, and award of attorney's fees are reversed.

State v. Gum 2025 ND 34
Docket No.: 20240331
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a motion for return of seized property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Estate of Connolly 2025 ND 33
Docket No.: 20240230
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Walden v. Walden 2025 ND 32
Docket No.: 20240131
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: District courts must consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the needs of the spouse seeking support, and the ability of the other spouse to pay when determining whether to award spousal support. A party who fails to provide evidence of net income waives any argument that he or she did not have the ability to pay spousal support.

A district court considers the Ruff-Fischer factors when distributing marital property. The court must consider the length of a marriage in determining an equitable division of the marital estate under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. In a short-term marriage, the court may return to the parties what they brought into the marriage, but the division of property and debt must be equitable.

The guiding principle for an award of attorney's fees is one party's need and the other party's ability to pay. The district court may also consider whether a party's actions have unreasonably increased the time and efforts spent on the dispute.

Bullinger v. Sundog Interactive, Inc., et al. 2025 ND 31
Docket No.: 20240188
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court erred in its application of N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-88.

The North Dakota Business Corporations Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1, provides significant protections and remedies to minority shareholders. Upon the sale of a corporation, N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-87 affords dissenting shareholders the option to obtain the fair value of their shares. Section 10-19.1-87, N.D.C.C., outlines the rights of dissenting shareholders and N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-88 establishes the procedures for payment.

State v. Janachovsky 2025 ND 30
Docket No.: 20240198
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A criminal defendant who advises the district court that he intends to represent himself, and does so at each hearing after acknowledging an understanding of the rights afforded to him, constitutes the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of counsel.

A defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel when he decides to represent himself after being advised the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.

State v. Littleghost 2025 ND 29
Docket No.: 20240199
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of robbery, accomplice to theft, and theft of a credit device is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Interest of B.V 2025 ND 28
Docket No.: 20240315
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") has no exception for incarceration and neither incarceration nor doubtful prospects for rehabilitation will relieve a Human Service Zone of its duty under ICWA to make active efforts. The circumstances surrounding a parent's incarceration may have a direct bearing on what active efforts are possible.

The juvenile court may consider a Human Service Zone's involvement in its entirety in evaluating active efforts rather than focusing on efforts directed at each parent individually.

ICWA does not clarify the scope of the expert testimony required, nor does it require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the juvenile court's conclusion.

Interest of B.V. 2025 ND 28
Docket No.: 20240316
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") has no exception for incarceration and neither incarceration nor doubtful prospects for rehabilitation will relieve a Human Service Zone of its duty under ICWA to make active efforts. The circumstances surrounding a parent's incarceration may have a direct bearing on what active efforts are possible.

The juvenile court may consider a Human Service Zone's involvement in its entirety in evaluating active efforts rather than focusing on efforts directed at each parent individually.

ICWA does not clarify the scope of the expert testimony required, nor does it require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the juvenile court's conclusion.

Almklov v. State 2025 ND 27
Docket No.: 20240166
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court's order summarily dismissing an application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al. 2025 ND 26
Docket No.: 20240291
Filing Date: 1/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Berger v. Repnow 2025 ND 25
Docket No.: 20240147
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The law on partition of property, N.D.C.C. ch. 32-16, controls the distribution of property accumulated by unmarried partners and cohabitants. Although legal ownership of property is strong evidence of an intention to not share property, legal ownership is not dispositive when the person who is not the legal owner has financially contributed to the acquisition of the property.

Section 32-16-01, N.D.C.C., authorizes proceedings to partition property according to the respective rights of the persons interested therein and for a sale of such property or a part thereof, if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners. Real and personal property may be partitioned in the same action.

Five elements are required to establish unjust enrichment: 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.

A reviewing court needs to know the reasons for the trial court's decision before it can intelligently rule on the issues, and if the trial court does not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision, the reviewing court is left to merely speculate whether it properly applied the law.

State v. McCleary 2025 ND 24
Docket No.: 20240171
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Application of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act is limited to those instances where a detainer has been filed against a person imprisoned in a penal or correctional institution in North Dakota already serving a sentence within the state.

The UMDDA does not apply to prisoners who have been released on parole because the person is no longer imprisoned serving a sentence for a term of commitment.

A defendant who stipulates the statutory habitual offender requirements were met waives any alleged procedural defects by the district court in applying the habitual offender sentencing enhancements.

First National Bank of Omaha v. Yates 2025 ND 23
Docket No.: 20240274
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying a motion for relief from judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

State v. Henderson 2025 ND 22
Docket No.: 20240118
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Meiers v. NDDOT 2025 ND 21
Docket No.: 20240215
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Section 39-20-04.1, N.D.C.C., provides the Department with authority to suspend a driver's driving privileges. Section 39-20-03.1(4), N.D.C.C., lists procedures a law enforcement officer must follow when a person has tested over the legal limit for driving under the influence.

An officer's non-compliance with a provision of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) does not impact the Department's authority to suspend a driver's driving privileges unless the provision is basic and mandatory. A provision is basic and mandatory if it mirrors a provision of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.1(1).

A provision of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) mirrors a provision of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.1(1) when the officer's compliance with the provision provides to the Department information important to the Department in determining its authority to suspend a license.

The requirement in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) that the copy of the checklist and test records of a breath test be "certified" is not a basic and mandatory provision impacting the Department's authority to suspend a driver's driving privileges.

Hillerson v. Baker 2025 ND 20
Docket No.: 20240214
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment, order for contempt, and order for attorney's fees, are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) & (4).

Gooss v. A.K. 2025 ND 19
Docket No.: 20240157
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is affirmed.

Before a court grants a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order, the court must conduct a full hearing. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(4). The full hearing contemplated by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01 is a special summary proceeding, intended to quickly and effectively combat volatile situations before any tragic escalation.

The concern for expeditious proceedings should not override the need to fairly resolve factual disputes. When the court employs a procedure which fails to afford a party a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to present evidence on the relevant issues, the court has abused its discretion and violated the party's due process rights.

Davis, et al. v. Romanyshyn 2025 ND 18
Docket No.: 20240167
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order may not be granted without a full evidentiary hearing. It is better practice for a petitioner to present evidence through testimony, rather than through an inadmissible affidavit and petition. The respondent shall have an opportunity to contest the restraining order by offering admissible evidence or through cross-examination.

A disorderly conduct restraining order must not conflict with a parental responsibility order.

State v. Ruot 2025 ND 17
Docket No.: 20240193
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of child abuse is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

State v. Jackson 2025 ND 16
Docket No.: 20240234
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
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).

Windyboy v. State 2025 ND 15
Docket No.: 20240204
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Estate of Moe 2025 ND 14
Docket No.: 20240197
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Reformation of a will is an equitable remedy designed to give effect to the testator's intention and to prevent unjust enrichment.

When the court is determining whether to reform the terms of a will, the relevant inquiry is the testator's intention at the time the testator executed the will.

In reformation cases, a court may consider direct evidence and relevant extrinsic evidence as it pertains to the testator's intention at the time of execution. Post-execution evidence must relate to the testator's intent at the time of execution

Juneau v. State 2025 ND 13
Docket No.: 20240110
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A sentence is imposed in an illegal manner if the sentencing court does not observe rules or statutes providing procedural safeguards.

When an applicant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea in an application for postconviction relief, the application is treated as one made under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d), and the district court considers whether relief is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

Rule 11 provisions are mandatory, and substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea.

State v. Woodman 2025 ND 12
Docket No.: 20240037
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Obvious error review consists of determining whether (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, and (3) that affected a party's substantial rights. Obvious error review is applied only to prevent an unjust conviction, or the exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice.

When a defendant fails to object to a proposed instruction properly, or fails to specifically request an instruction or object to the omission of an instruction, the issue is not adequately preserved for appellate review and our inquiry is limited to whether the jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.

When prosecutorial misconduct is raised for the first time on appeal, review is limited to determining whether the prosecutor's conduct prejudicially affected the defendant's substantial rights, so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Review on appeal of a sentence is generally confined to whether the district court acted within the statutory sentencing limits or substantially relied on an impermissible factor.

Interest of E.E. 2025 ND 11
Docket No.: 20240321
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

State v. Greene 2025 ND 10
Docket No.: 20240128
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a defendant pleaded guilty to eleven sexual offenses is affirmed.

Generally, an open plea waives all non-jurisdictional claims and defenses, including multiplicity challenges.

Only in an extraordinary case will a sentence for a term of imprisonment within the statutory sentencing limits violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association 2025 ND 9
Docket No.: 20240160
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed.

A court considers five factors when assessing whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice: (1) the nature and quality of a nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (2) the quantity of the nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) North Dakota's interest in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. While the first three factors are of primary concern, the fourth and fifth factors are of only secondary importance and are not determinative.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(5)(A), a district court shall not impose monetary sanctions against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2).

A district court abuses its discretion by denying a party's motion for attorney's fees when the party prevails on a Rule 11 motion that is contrary to the plain language of Rule 11.

Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth 2025 ND 8
Docket No.: 20240161
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An unequal property distribution must be adequately explained by the district court.

Valuation of marital assets must be within the range of evidence presented.

A district court must apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when determining property distribution and spousal support in a divorce proceeding.

The proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuance.

Glaum v. Woodrow 2025 ND 7
Docket No.: 20240153
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment dismissing a civil case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Reile v. WSI, et. al. 2025 ND 6
Docket No.: 20240135
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The authority of an administrative agency to adopt administrative rules is authority delegated by the legislative assembly. A properly promulgated regulation has the force and effect of law. A regulation that exceeds or supersedes an agency's statutory authority or conflicts with the statute it implements is invalid. The rationale for this principle is that allowing an administrative agency to promulgate rules that include substantive matters not included in the statute under which it is acting constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power. The legislature has not specifically authorized WSI to promulgate rules regulating the proof required to establish compensability for a mental or psychological condition. WSI exceeded its authority when it promulgated a rule imposing specific burdens and limitations not present in the statute the rule implements.

Interest of R.S. 2025 ND 5
Docket No.: 20240341
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Poseley v. Homer Township, et al. 2025 ND 4
Docket No.: 20240174
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

An aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body's decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2), a claim for attorney's fees not determined by the judgment must be made by motion within 21 days after notice of entry of judgment.

State v. Thompson 2025 ND 3
Docket No.: 20240117
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues. A court's power to exclude relevant evidence should be exercised sparingly.

Issues not raised or considered in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. However, newly raised issues may be addressed on appeal if the issue rises to the level of obvious error. The discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error need not be exercised, because it is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right.

The scope of cross-examination is within the district court's discretion, the propriety of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Reasonable limits may be placed on a defendant's cross-examination, including the exclusion of irrelevant evidence.

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240216
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240217
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240218
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Caspers 2025 ND 1
Docket No.: 20240124
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1, a defendant cannot be ordered to a third period of probation. The statute allows for an initial period of probation and one additional period of probation not to exceed five years.

A district court order denying in part a motion for reduced sentence is affirmed.

City of Fargo v. State 2024 ND 236
Docket No.: 20240125
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A home rule city's power to enact ordinances that supersede state law is not without limitation because a home rule city's powers must be based upon statutory provisions.

Cities are creatures of statute and possess only those powers and authorities granted by statute or necessarily implied from an express statutory grant.

Hoff v. State 2024 ND 235
Docket No.: 20240158
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A postconviction relief application barred by the two-year limitation in N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) is not excepted by N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3) when the applicant demonstrates a physical disability or mental disease does not preclude timely assertion of their application for relief.

Although Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., uses the plural term "witnesses," the plural term "witnesses" is interpreted to include the singular term "witness." Therefore, a party may request to sequester a single witness.

Hoff v. State 2024 ND 235
Docket No.: 20240159
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A postconviction relief application barred by the two-year limitation in N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(2) is not excepted by N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3) when the applicant demonstrates a physical disability or mental disease does not preclude timely assertion of their application for relief.

Although Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., uses the plural term "witnesses," the plural term "witnesses" is interpreted to include the singular term "witness." Therefore, a party may request to sequester a single witness.

Adoption of H.W.L. 2024 ND 234
Docket No.: 20240289
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order terminating parental rights and granting a petition for adoption is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Overbo v. Overbo, et al. 2024 ND 233
Docket No.: 20240164
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The party presentation principle requires courts refrain from deciding constitutional questions not submitted by the litigants.

Sanderson v. Agotness 2024 ND 232
Docket No.: 20240054
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A judge acting within their judicial capacity is protected by judicial immunity.

The prevailing party of a frivolous action shall be awarded attorney's fees.

State v. Eagleman 2024 ND 231
Docket No.: 20240176
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Reckless Endangerment
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: While we have previously treated motions filed under the rules of criminal procedure as applications under the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, we have done so in the limited circumstance where the defendant has filed a previous application for postconviction relief and the filing in the criminal case hints at an attempt to "avoid the procedures of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act."

It is not proper for a defendant to collaterally attack the underlying conviction by way of a motion to correct an illegal sentence because the "Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act is the exclusive remedy for collaterally challenging a judgment of conviction or sentence . . . ."

Interest of A.E.E. 2024 ND 230
Docket No.: 20240121
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.1-16(2), any party to the proceeding in which the child's status was adjudicated may petition for removal or modification of a guardian on the grounds the removal or modification would be in the best interest of the child. If an insufficient showing has been made, the district court shall issue an order denying the petition.

State v. Werner 2024 ND 229
Docket No.: 20240084
Filing Date: 12/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Investigative stops of a vehicle and its occupants for suspected violations of law will be upheld if officers have at least a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has violated the law or probable cause to believe the motorist has done so. The suspected violation of law need not be related to the current operation of a motor vehicle.

Reasonable suspicion for a stop exists when a reasonable person in the officer's position would be justified by some objective manifestation to suspect potential unlawful activity. The reasonable suspicion standard is objective and does not hinge upon the subjective beliefs or motivations of the arresting officer. In order to determine whether an investigative stop is valid, we consider the totality of the circumstances and examine the information known to the officer at the time of the stop.

An officer is required to 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. When determining if a person is subject to custodial interrogation, the court examines all circumstances surrounding the interrogation and considers what a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood in his situation.