Opinions

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

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.