Opinions

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.