Opinions

Wasley v. WSI, et al. 2020 ND 59
Docket No.: 20190350
Filing Date: 3/19/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Per Curiam

Sapa, et al. v. Lofthus 2020 ND 58
Docket No.: 20190283
Filing Date: 3/19/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment relating to the cancellation of a contract for deed is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Carlson v. Carlson 2020 ND 57
Docket No.: 20190187
Filing Date: 3/19/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met.
If competent evidence of domestic violence does not trigger the statutory presumption, the violence must be considered as one factor in deciding primary residential responsibility.
A district court’s findings and conclusions regarding the presumption should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision.

Caster v. State 2020 ND 56
Docket No.: 20190043
Filing Date: 3/19/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: District court order summarily denying application for post-conviction relief remanded with instructions for further proceedings.

Reliance on proposed orders containing no factual findings, conclusions of law, or support from the record does not satisfy the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-11.

Interest of D.M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2020 ND 55
Docket No.: 20190299
Filing Date: 3/4/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Juvenile Law
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders finding and affirming aggravating circumstances and ending services are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2),(7).

Northern States Power v. Mikkelson, et al. 2020 ND 54
Docket No.: 20190227
Filing Date: 3/3/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The amount of damages caused by an eminent domain taking is an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact.

Schulke v. NDDOT 2020 ND 53
Docket No.: 20190328
Filing Date: 3/2/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Section 39-20-14(1), N.D.C.C., establishes that drivers are deemed to have provided consent to submit to a screening test when the driver commits a traffic offense or is involved in an accident and, in conjunction with the traffic violation or accident, law enforcement formulates an opinion the driver’s body contains alcohol; It does not require the screening test to be conducted at the location of the stop.

State v. Mohammed 2020 ND 52
Docket No.: 20190280
Filing Date: 2/27/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Sufficient evidence supports the criminal judgment finding the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal.

State v. Ovind 2020 ND 51
Docket No.: 20190351
Filing Date: 2/27/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Defendants have the right to court-appointed counsel at public expense in all felony cases and in all non-felony cases, unless the sentence upon conviction will not include imprisonment, only if they are eligible under the guidelines governing indigency.
Non-indigent defendants also have the right to court-appointed counsel, at their own expense, if they are unable to secure the assistance of counsel.
An appellant assumes the consequences and the risk of failing to file a transcript on appeal, and this Court will not review an issue if the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the district court’s alleged error.

State v. Marcum 2020 ND 50
Docket No.: 20190229
Filing Date: 2/27/2020
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued.
Sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the district court’s findings exists, and its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Sufficient evidence supports finding the defendant had a prior conviction for an equivalent offense, and residue in a pipe supports the conviction for possession of methamphetamine.