Opinions

State v. Gardner 2019 ND 122
Docket No.: 20180239
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A claimant neither needs to be the addressee nor needs to live at the address on a package to claim a search and seizure right to the package. A claimant only needs to show a possessory interest in the package.

Ali v. State 2019 ND 121
Docket No.: 20190004
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: District court’s finding that an application for post-conviction relief failed to establish counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness was not clearly erroneous.

Curtiss v. State 2019 ND 120
Docket No.: 20180392
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s order denying application for post-conviction relief and order denying motions for reconsideration and to correct a sentence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), (6), and (7).

Lavallie v. State 2019 ND 119
Docket No.: 20190007
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing a post-conviction relief application is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of F.M.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2019 ND 118
Docket No.: 20190097
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Continuing treatment order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Johnson 2019 ND 117
Docket No.: 20180429
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s order denying a motion to return bond is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Keller v. State 2019 ND 116
Docket No.: 20180391
Filing Date: 5/16/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Summary affirmance of district court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

Interest of T.A.G. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2019 ND 115
Docket No.: 20180374
Filing Date: 5/6/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The case is remanded for additional findings of fact on whether a person was likely to reoffend and had serious difficulty controlling behavior, as required to deny sex offender discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual.

Ayling v. Sens, et al. 2019 ND 114
Docket No.: 20180231
Filing Date: 4/25/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An action barred by a statute of limitations generally is dismissed under the summary judgment standards of N.D.R.Civ.P. 56.

Determining when a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. Under the discovery rule the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and its resulting injury.

Condon v. St. Alexius Medical Center, et al. 2019 ND 113
Docket No.: 20180297
Filing Date: 4/22/2019
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Section 32-42-02, N.D.C.C., does not violate the equal-protection provisions of N.D. Const. art. I, § 21.

The right to recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right subject to the intermediate standard of equal-protection analysis.

A district court’s decision whether to grant or deny a new trial under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b) rests entirely within its discretion, and review of a denial of a new trial motion is limited to deciding whether the court manifestly abused its discretion.

Testimony from a physician that a plaintiff’s medical condition is permanent and would worsen is sufficient to establish foundation for future medical expenses.

Evidence of medical expenses can be admitted without an expert medical opinion that the expenses were necessitated by the defendant’s conduct.

When considering claims of prejudicial misconduct, courts consider the nature of the comments the jury heard, their probable effect on the jury in the context of the entire trial, and the district court’s instructions to the jury.

A district court has discretion to balance the probative value of proffered evidence against the dangers enumerated in N.D.R.Ev. 403.

A district court does not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony whenever specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, even if the expert does not possess a particular expertise or specific certification.

When the verdict is reasonably within the scope of the evidence presented and the instructions of the court, the plaintiff is entitled to have judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict.