Opinions

Heisler v. Reiger, et al. 2025 ND 180
Docket No.: 20250133
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A post-trial motion invoking both N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) extends the time to file an appeal until notice of entry of the order disposing of the motion when the motion is brought within the time limits set forth in N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(c)(2) and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3).

The 60-day period for filing an appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) starts to run in the absence of a notice of entry of the judgment or order only when the record clearly shows the appealing party had actual knowledge of the judgment or order, as evidenced by some affirmative action taken by the appealing party that shows actual knowledge.

The email notice the clerk of district court provides the parties pursuant to N.D.R.Ct. 3.5(e)(5) does not equate to actual notice that will start the 60-day period for filing an appeal in the absence of a notice of entry of the judgment or order.

The judgment of the district court in favor of the appellee is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Eggl v. State 2025 ND 179
Docket No.: 20250183
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel when his client chose to enter an open plea rather than accept the State's plea offer where counsel provided his client the options on how to proceed, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the case, and left the final decision on how to proceed to his client.

State v. Chambers 2025 ND 178
Docket No.: 20250108
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Attempted Murder
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A criminal defendant failed to show his substantial rights were prejudiced by the potential ambiguity of pleading guilty to both a cognizable offense and a non-cognizable offense where there was a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea to the cognizable offense. The requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(B) did not apply where the criminal defendant entered an open plea rather than pleading guilty under a plea agreement in which the parties presented a joint recommendation on a proposed sentence.

Schultz v. Schultz 2025 ND 177
Docket No.: 20250156
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court divorce judgment awarding equal residential responsibility and distributing the marital estate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Hernandez v. State 2025 ND 176
Docket No.: 20250116
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

Corey v. Kenneh 2025 ND 175
Docket No.: 20250239
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A disorderly conduct restraining order is affirmed.

An appeal is not moot if a district court order has collateral consequences for the appealing party.

Citations to non-existent case law may preclude review of issues on appeal.

It is the appellant's responsibility to obtain a transcript and they must bear any consequences for failing to provide a transcript on appeal.

State v. King 2025 ND 174
Docket No.: 20250101
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Obvious error analysis requires consideration whether the district court clearly deviated from applicable current law.

An alleged error that is not plain will not be analyzed further in accordance with judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance.

Olson v. Olson, et al. 2025 ND 173
Docket No.: 20250120
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Certified questions from our state district courts have a more stringent standard than foreign courts, requiring the question to be determinative, because the parties have a right to appeal.

The district court's certified question of law is not answered because the question is not dispositive of the issues before that court and our response would be purely advisory

State v. Santiago Agosto 2025 ND 172
Docket No.: 20250135
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Interest of Skorick 2025 ND 171
Docket No.: 20250071
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules.

Williamson v. Williamson 2025 ND 170
Docket No.: 20250007
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment of divorce, order denying reconsideration, and order awarding attorney's fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (4), and (6).

Thompson v. City of Adams, et al. 2025 ND 169
Docket No.: 20250185
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al. 2025 ND 168
Docket No.: 20250177
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Eviction
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient.

Eviction actions are not joinable with other actions, and counterclaims and defenses may not be interposed except as a setoff to a demand made for damages, rents, or profits.

A contract for deed may be canceled by statutory cancellation. By following the statutes' strict guidelines, a vendor cancels the contract for deed by operation of law. Upon cancellation, the vendee's interest in the property terminates, and the vendee is required to return possession of the property to the vendor. If the vendee fails to return possession of the property, the vendee is in wrongful possession of the property, and an eviction is proper.

Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock, et al. 2025 ND 168
Docket No.: 20250176
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Eviction
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Once a prima facie showing of valid service has been presented, the burden shifts to the defendant to present facts and documentation to establish service of process was insufficient.

Eviction actions are not joinable with other actions, and counterclaims and defenses may not be interposed except as a setoff to a demand made for damages, rents, or profits.

A contract for deed may be canceled by statutory cancellation. By following the statutes' strict guidelines, a vendor cancels the contract for deed by operation of law. Upon cancellation, the vendee's interest in the property terminates, and the vendee is required to return possession of the property to the vendor. If the vendee fails to return possession of the property, the vendee is in wrongful possession of the property, and an eviction is proper.

State v. Jemal 2025 ND 167
Docket No.: 20250222
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings to support its decision to revoke probation instead of choosing alternative sanctions.

Appellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether the sentence is within the statutory range and whether the court considered impermissible factors.

A party may not challenge an order or judgment on appeal without designating it in a notice of appeal.

Sutherby v. Astanina, et al. 2025 ND 166
Docket No.: 20250132
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court must credit a noncustodial parent for voluntary child support payments made during the pendency of an action when calculating past-due support obligations. When a court orders child support with a retroactive effective date, it must offset any past-due support owed by payments the noncustodial parent made to the custodial parent for the children's benefit during the relevant period.

Rugland v. State 2025 ND 165
Docket No.: 20250117
Filing Date: 10/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

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

Interest of Hoff 2025 ND 164
Docket No.: 20250016
Filing Date: 10/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: An order denying discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is reversed and remanded for further findings. A district court's order finding an individual remains a sexually dangerous individual must contain sufficient and specific factual findings to show the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

State v. Moen 2025 ND 163
Docket No.: 20250018
Filing Date: 10/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Confrontation Clause provides two protections to criminal defendants: the right to physically face someone who testifies against them, and the right to cross-examine. Although the right to confront witnesses is of a constitutional magnitude, it is not absolute and, in appropriate cases, may bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.

North Dakota Century Code § 31-04-04.2 permits remote electronic testimony by children if testifying in front of a criminal defendant would traumatize a child in a manner impacting the child's ability to communicate.

A district court's findings of fact in preliminary proceedings of a criminal case will not be reversed if, after the conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

State v. Guthmiller 2025 ND 162
Docket No.: 20250085
Filing Date: 10/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: In criminal cases, errors not raised in the district court may be either forfeited errors or waived errors. Forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right, while waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a right.

Although this Court may review forfeited errors for obvious error, the obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to waived errors.

Unchallenged jury instructions become the law of the case for purposes of assessing a claim about the sufficiency of the evidence.

Anderson v. Krueger 2025 ND 161
Docket No.: 20250078
Filing Date: 10/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A district court may enter a protection order when there has been a showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.

Domestic violence protection orders are civil in nature and governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 14-07.1. Criminal justification defenses under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-06 do not apply to civil domestic violence protection order proceedings.

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.: 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).

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).

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.