Opinions

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