Opinions

State v. Rutherford 2018 ND 91
Docket No.: 20170370
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's criminal judgment ordering restitution is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Interest of R.F. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2018 ND 90
Docket No.: 20180110
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's order for continued treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for a period not to exceed one year is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of S.B. (Consolidated w/20180057)(CONFIDENTIAL) 2018 ND 89
Docket No.: 20180056
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Thorstad v. State 2018 ND 88
Docket No.: 20170427
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

State v. Ali 2018 ND 87
Docket No.: 20170378
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Warrantless, limited entry by a police officer into an open garage does not violate a defendant's federal or state constitutional rights under the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement.

Brekhus v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation 2018 ND 86
Docket No.: 20170296
Filing Date: 4/10/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Warrantless, limited entry by a police officer into an open garage does not violate a defendant's federal or state constitutional rights under the hot pursuit exception to the warrant requirement.

Grasser v. Grasser 2018 ND 85
Docket No.: 20170188
Filing Date: 3/29/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A motion for recusal and a demand for a change of judge are two separate motions. Unlike a demand under N.D.C.C. 29-15-21, a district court judge is not immediately divested of authority upon the filing of a motion to recuse. While a judge has a duty to recuse when required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge also has an equally strong duty not to recuse when the facts do not require recusal.
An order finding a person guilty of contempt is a final order for purposes of appeal under N.D.C.C. 27-10-01.3(3). A district court's decision to impose sanctions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 rests within the sound discretion of the court and it will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion.
A district court's decisions on child custody, including an initial award of custody, are treated as findings of fact and will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous. This Court will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses, and we will not retry a custody case or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial custody decision merely because we might have reached a different result.
It is well-established that a property distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained so as to provide some indication of the rationale of the district court in distributing the property.

City of Bismarck v. Brekhus (consolidated w/20170166 & 20170167) 2018 ND 84
Docket No.: 20170165
Filing Date: 3/22/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A police officer's warrantless, limited entry into a defendant's open garage while in "hot pursuit" does not violate the defendant's rights under either the federal or state constitutions.

J.B., et al. v. R.B. 2018 ND 83
Docket No.: 20180018
Filing Date: 3/22/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Solwey v. Solwey 2018 ND 82
Docket No.: 20170379
Filing Date: 3/22/2018
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The effective date for a modification of child support depends upon the facts of each case. The modification generally should be made effective from the date of the motion to modify, absent good reason to set some other date.
If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is of sufficient maturity to make a sound judgment, the court may give substantial weight to the preference of the mature child. The maturity of the child is a factually driven issue and will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.