Opinions

Harris v. Oasis Petroleum, et al. 2024 ND 85
Docket No.: 20230279
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The question of who is a prevailing party under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06 is a question of law, subject to de novo review.
A prevailing party in a tort action must at least prevail on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. There may not be a single prevailing party when opposing parties each prevail on some issues.
Under North Dakota's comparative fault statute, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02, in the case of a contributorily negligent plaintiff, any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. However, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 does not provide for any diminution in the costs and disbursements to be allowed to a recovering plaintiff.
A district court has the discretion to award a prevailing party costs and disbursements under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06, without reduction by the party's percentage of fault. The law does not require a court to reduce costs awarded to the prevailing party based on its percentage of fault.

Field v. Field, et al. 2024 ND 84
Docket No.: 20230405
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Under Rule 30(a), N.D.R.App.P., a party's references to evidence in any document on appeal must cite to items in the record. This Court does not consider documents that are not in the certified record. After an initial custody decision has been made, parenting time modifications are governed by N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2) and by standards set forth in caselaw. A parenting plan must include a provision on decision making responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-30(2)(a), and that responsibility must be allocated in the best interests of the child, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-31(2). A district court's decision on parenting time and decision making responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Interest of Skorick 2024 ND 83
Docket No.: 20230330
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior.

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230382
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230383
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230384
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382-20230384) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230385
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al. 2024 ND 81
Docket No.: 20230110
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the parties' rights to an action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 are appealable.

Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies to final judgments or orders. A final judgment is a decree, order, or judgment "from which an appeal lies." N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a).

Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., recognizes a district court may direct entry of a final judgment against only some of the parties to a litigation, but until final judgment is entered all orders are subject to revision.

Zander, et al. v. Morsette 2024 ND 80
Docket No.: 20230103
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The district court controls the scope and substance of opening and closing arguments, and a district court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

A party is not prejudiced by a counsel's improper arguments when the district court instructs the jury not to consider counsel's comments as evidence.

A court may grant a new trial on grounds the jury awarded excessive damages appearing to have been awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice. To justify the granting of a new trial, passion and prejudice usually connote anger, resentment, hate, and disregard of the rights of others.

When a jury awards excessive damages, under appropriate circumstances, the district court and this Court on appeal, may order a reduction of the verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess damages.

State v. Pederson 2024 ND 79
Docket No.: 20230318
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: To succeed in a challenge under Brady, the defendant must demonstrate the evidence was favorable to the defendant or plainly exculpatory.

To preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal, the defendant must move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 unless the district court committed obvious error.