Opinions

Matter of Robinson 2025 ND 93
Docket No.: 20250057
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A person with a felony conviction petitioning for a name change must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the name change request is not based upon an intent to defraud or mislead, is made in good faith, will not cause injury to an individual, and will not compromise public safety.

ND Indoor RV Park v. State, et al. 2025 ND 92
Docket No.: 20240293
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The right to appeal is governed by statute, and without a statutory basis to hear an appeal, we do not have jurisdiction and we must dismiss the appeal.

This Court's authority to issue supervisory writs is derived from Art. VI, § 2, N.D. Const., which vests this Court with appellate and original jurisdiction with authority to issue, hear, and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary to properly exercise its jurisdiction. This Court exercises its discretionary authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only in cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

Public officials are protected by qualified immunity unless it is shown that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

To prove a substantive due process violation, one must establish a constitutionally protected property interest and that a public official used their power in such an arbitrary and oppressive way that it shocks the conscience.

To prove a procedural due process violation, one must establish that: (1) a public official deprived them of some life, liberty, or property interest, and (2) the deprivation of that interest was done without due process. Procedural due process necessitates a notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally appropriate if the plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies.

State v. Taylor 2025 ND 91
Docket No.: 20240033
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The omission of a single juror's response to a jury poll in a trial transcript does not establish a violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when the record sufficiently demonstrates the existence of other safeguards ensuring that the jury was properly impaneled and returned a unanimous verdict free of coercion or pressure.

The district court has wide discretion over the mode and order of presenting evidence, and over the use of extrinsic evidence to refresh memory or impeach a witness based on a prior inconsistent statement.

A sentencing decision will only be vacated if the district court acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NECJD 2025 ND 90
Docket No.: 20250094
Filing Date: 4/30/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, SCJD 2025 ND 89
Docket No.: 20250083
Filing Date: 4/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Bismarck

Fowler v. Fowler, et al. 2025 ND 88
Docket No.: 20240308
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An attorney's fees sanction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 must comply with safeguards in the rule.

A court abuses its discretion by deeming an action frivolous if the claim is grounded in a good faith argument for an extension of the current interpretation of the law.

A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 if the action is not frivolous.

Zittleman v. Bibler, et al. 2025 ND 87
Docket No.: 20240196
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party's due process rights were not violated by limiting the time of a hearing and preemptively allocating time to both parties.

A district court did not abuse its discretion when it limits the length of a hearing.

If a party desires more time for a hearing than a district court has scheduled, the party must object to the time limitations or move for a continuance.

A district court is not required to conduct a best interests analysis if it finds there has been no material change in circumstances.

A district court is not required to modify a residential responsibility judgment beyond the motion requested by a party.

State v. Brown 2025 ND 86
Docket No.: 20240225
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: This Court reviews an appeal from the dismissal of a criminal charge after a preliminary hearing under the abuse of discretion standard of review.

At a preliminary hearing the State must produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of committing the crime.

Lowe v. WSI 2025 ND 85
Docket No.: 20250014
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Skobodzinski v. NDDOT 2025 ND 84
Docket No.: 20240241
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motor vehicle operator arrested for driving under the influence or being in actual physical control has a limited statutory right to consult with an attorney.

A person arrested for driving under the influence who asks to consult with an attorney before deciding to take a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the administration of the test.

Whether a person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney is determined by conducting an objective review of the totality of the circumstances.

The appropriate inquiry is whether the police afforded an arrestee a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel in a meaningful way.