Opinions

Interest of C.S. (Confidential) 2016 ND 50
Docket No.: 20160009
Filing Date: 3/15/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Order terminating parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Erickstad v. State 2016 ND 49
Docket No.: 20150303
Filing Date: 3/15/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order dismissing application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (7).

Vogt v. State 2016 ND 48
Docket No.: 20150279
Filing Date: 3/3/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

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

Aker v. Neiber 2016 ND 47
Docket No.: 20150229
Filing Date: 3/3/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order denying motion to amend parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Rath v. Rath (cross ref. 20130025, 184 & 252; 20140012 & 291) 2016 ND 46
Docket No.: 20150088
Filing Date: 2/24/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court's decision on whether a contempt has been committed and remedial sanctions are warranted lies within its sound discretion and will not be overturned on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
The district court has broad discretion in controlling the time allotted for a hearing.
A district court has discretion to decide whether a claim is frivolous and the amount and reasonableness of an award of attorney fees, but when the court decides a claim is frivolous, the court must award attorney fees.
The district court's decision on a recusal motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

Hiltner v. Owners Ins. Co. 2016 ND 45
Docket No.: 20140308
Filing Date: 2/24/2016
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Kittleson, et al. v. Grynberg Petroleum Company, et al. 2016 ND 44
Docket No.: 20150075
Filing Date: 2/22/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: If a specific provision and a general provision in a contract conflict, the specific ordinarily prevails over the general.
A specific statute of limitation prevails over a general statute of limitation, and if there is a question, the longer statute of limitation generally applies.

Nodak Mutual Ins. Co. v. Koller, et al. 2016 ND 43
Docket No.: 20150079
Filing Date: 2/22/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Whether an individual is a resident of a named insured's household for the purposes of an automobile insurance policy is a question of fact and technical notions of legal residence are not controlling.
The nonexclusive factors for determining whether an individual is a resident of a named insured's household include the intent of the parties, the formality of the relationship, the permanence of that residence, the existence of another place of lodging for that person, and the age and self-sufficiency of that person.
A district court need not specifically decide each factor so long as it considers the totality of the circumstances in finding whether an individual is a resident of a named insured's household.

Williston Education Association v. Williston Public School Dist. No. 1 2016 ND 42
Docket No.: 20150256
Filing Date: 2/18/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Agreements between teacher associations and school boards must be read in light of the comprehensive statutory framework governing those relations.
When reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is improper.

Annexation of a Part of Lewis & Clark Public School District 2016 ND 41
Docket No.: 20150182
Filing Date: 2/18/2016
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A school district may be adversely affected by an annexation decision that causes the district to lose land or gain unwanted land.
The State Board of Public School Education may consider the amount of land involved in an annexation petition.
The catch-all statutory provision allowing the State Board to consider "[a]ll other relevant factors" in an annexation case is not unconstitutionally vague or an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.