Opinions

Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Behm 2019 ND 139
Docket No.: 20180321
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Where eminent domain is exercised by a utility business, condemnation for service to a single industrial customer does not forestall a finding that the taking is for a public use.

In the absence of bad faith, gross abuse of discretion, or fraud by the condemning authority in its determination that the property sought is necessary for the authorized use and is pursuant to specific statutory authority, such determination should not be disturbed by the courts.

The Supreme Court does not address inadequately briefed issues.

State v. Vetter 2019 ND 138
Docket No.: 20180356
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A traffic stop is not expanded by incidental questions the officer asks without reasonable suspicion so long as they occur prior to the completion of the stop and the officer does not deliberately delay completion of the stop.

Morales v. State 2019 ND 137
Docket No.: 20180408
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Summary dismissal of a post-conviction application for ineffective assistance of counsel is appropriate if the applicant does not claim that, but for his attorney’s errors, he would have insisted on going to trial.

Watford City Lodging LLC v. Miskin 2019 ND 136
Docket No.: 20180339
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Landlord/Tenant
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: In summary eviction proceedings, the right to possession of the property is the only fact that can be litigated unless damages or rent is claimed.

Olson v. State 2019 ND 135
Docket No.: 20180268
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Accomplice to murder under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is a cognizable offense under North Dakota law.

A person may be convicted as an accomplice if the person intends that an offense be committed and aids another in committing the offense.

A defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea after the district court has imposed sentence unless the defendant shows withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

State v. Vigen 2019 ND 134
Docket No.: 20180394
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: An informed consent advisory omitting statutory language regarding refusal to submit to a urine test does not comply with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(a).

Ortega v. Sanford Bismarck, et al. 2019 ND 133
Docket No.: 20180331
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The purpose of the expert opinion affidavit requirement under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 is to screen totally unsupported claims and to prevent protracted litigation when a medical malpractice plaintiff cannot substantiate a basis for the claim.
District courts should be cautious when granting summary judgment on propositions of law that were not advanced by the parties.
This Court on appeal does not provide advisory opinions.

Sutton v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation 2019 ND 132
Docket No.: 20180427
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Checking the boxes denoting an odor of alcohol and refusal of chemical testing, in combination with a note in the explanation box stating the driver declined field sobriety tests, is sufficient to render the Report and Notice Form adequate under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-04.

Bride v. Trinity Hospital, et al. 2019 ND 131
Docket No.: 20180335
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is appealable if the statute of limitations has expired on the plaintiff’s claim, foreclosing further litigation in this state.
A plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must serve an affidavit containing an admissible expert opinion supporting a prima facie case of professional negligence within three months of the commencement of the action or request an extension of the time to serve the affidavit within the three-month period.
Claims of inadequate follow-up or post-operative care ordinarily require expert testimony regarding the appropriate standard of care.

Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Steffes, et al. 2019 ND 130
Docket No.: 20180359
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An order granting a new trial is not reviewable without N.D.Civ.P. 54(b) certification.

A two prong inquiry is used to determine whether an order is appealable if unadjudicated claims remain to be resolved by the trial court. First, the order must satisfy one of the statutorily enumerated bases for appeal. Second, the order must be certified under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b).