Opinions

Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al. 2025 ND 47
Docket No.: 20240083
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable.

When interpreting a contract, N.D.C.C. § 9-07-06 provides that the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable. If the granting clause describes the land as being an undivided interest in the land and a subsequent reservation which reserves a fractional part of the "land conveyed," or words of similar import, the reservation will be construed as reserving to the grantor the stated fractional interest of the fraction described in the granting clause.

A Duhig problem does not arise when a grantor, who owns an undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in a parcel of land via partnership, conveys the undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in the land's surface and a one-fourth (1/4) interest in land's minerals but reserves for himself the other one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals of the same land.

An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms. Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Stipulations as to the law are also invalid.

Language tying a royalty interest to another interest, such as a one-eighth royalty interest of an eight percent interest, creates a floating royalty.

State v. Williams 2025 ND 46
Docket No.: 20240203
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

When an issue is not raised at the trial court, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

A defendant's due process rights may be violated by a prosecutor's actions that constitute misconduct that has a prejudicial effect.

Hoistad v. NDDOT 2025 ND 45
Docket No.: 20240297
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The Department bears the burden of proving a chemical breath test result was fairly administered. If the Department fails to establish compliance with the approved method which goes to the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test, the Department must prove fair administration of the test through expert testimony.

When it is ready for the second breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 8000 displays, "Please Blow Until Tone Stops." The word "until" in this context signifies the point at which the driver should cease blowing into the instrument. Repeatedly blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stopped is contrary to the instructions displayed by the Intoxilyzer 8000 and, thus, the approved method.

Unless the impact of a deviation is within the knowledge of an ordinary person, it is the Department's burden to show through expert testimony whether a deviation from the approved method impacted the accuracy and reliability of the test. An ordinary person does not know what impact, if any, a subject's repeated blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stops has on the test results.

When the officer's deviations from the approved method involve the procedures for collecting and testing the sample, it raises the possibility that the deviation impacted the test result.

Even though the Department's action is not upheld by a court, a party is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) when the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision.

State v. Plentychief 2025 ND 44
Docket No.: 20240334
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Motion to reconsider order of dismissal denied.

Edwards v. State 2025 ND 43
Docket No.: 20240042
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An applicant for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-90 (1984). Under Strickland's test, the applicant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Interest of S.F. 2025 ND 42
Docket No.: 20240337
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

State, et al. v. Carrier 2025 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240210
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Child support determinations involve questions of law, which are fully reviewable, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and in some areas, matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

The party seeking to modify a child support obligation has the burden to provide appropriate and reliable information to support a modification of child support.

Issues are not adequately briefed when an appealing party fails to cite any supporting authority, and this Court will not consider them on appeal.

Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone 2025 ND 40
Docket No.: 20240143
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Whether an obligor can control the receipt of trust funds is not relevant to whether the funds are income for child support purposes. A court calculating a parent's child support obligation is concerned with whether the parent receives income from the trust.

The child support amount is presumed to be the correct amount, but can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence if it is in the best interest of the children and one of the criteria in N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. The court must make specific findings demonstrating why the guideline amount has been rebutted.

A court may order the obligor maintain a life insurance policy as reasonable security for child support payments.

A party moving to amend a judgment under Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., bears a heavy burden of showing sufficient grounds for disturbing the final judgment.

State v. McDermott 2025 ND 39
Docket No.: 20240150
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment with a firearm is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Peterka v. Janda, et al. 2025 ND 38
Docket No.: 20240122
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment denying and dismissing a complaint for declaratory judgment is affirmed.

A district court's findings that an individual lacked capacity to enter into the option to purchase does not preclude a finding that the individual was of unsound mind, rendering the option to purchase voidable under N.D.C.C. § 1401-02. The standard to determine whether an individual lacks capacity to enter into a contract is distinct from the standard whether a contract or other conveyance is voidable under N.D.C.C. § 14-01-02.

Gackle v. NDDOT 2025 ND 37
Docket No.: 20240247
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend driving privileges for 365 days for driving under the influence of alcohol is reversed.

The North Dakota Department of Transportation fails to show an Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered when an officer's deviation from the approved method was such that the Court cannot say, without expert advice, that the officer's deviation from the approved method did not affect the test results.

When the deviation from the approved method could not have affected the reliability or accuracy of the test results, the deviation does not render the test results inadmissible.

The approved method provides that, upon receiving a result of "Difference Too Great," an "operator shall wait another 20 minutes and ensure the subject has had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test." We interpret "before repeating the Intoxilyzer 8000 test" consistent with the language of the approved method as a whole to require an officer to wait 20 minutes before beginning a subsequent test sequence.

A breath test record showing a period of time less than 20 minutes between test sequences cannot prima facie establish the test was administered in accordance with the approved method because the approved method expressly requires an operator to wait 20 minutes before repeating the test sequence.

Failure to wait 20 minutes before beginning the second testing sequence is the type of deviation from the approved method which may have affected the scientific accuracy or reliability of the test. Absent expert testimony on the likely effect of this deviation, the Department fails to show the test was fairly administered.

Guardianship and Conservatorship of G.I.C. 2025 ND 36
Docket No.: 20240146
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order directing distribution of trust assets is reversed.

When a trust agreement provides for specific devises of land but that land is sold prior to the trust's termination, each beneficiary is entitled to a share of the remaining proceeds of the sale of the land proportionate to the value of each beneficiary's specific devises.

Gravity Oilfield Services v. Valence Natural Gas Solutions 2025 ND 35
Docket No.: 20240184
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order granting summary judgment and judgment, and award of attorney's fees are reversed.

State v. Gum 2025 ND 34
Docket No.: 20240331
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying a motion for return of seized property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Estate of Connolly 2025 ND 33
Docket No.: 20240230
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Walden v. Walden 2025 ND 32
Docket No.: 20240131
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: District courts must consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the needs of the spouse seeking support, and the ability of the other spouse to pay when determining whether to award spousal support. A party who fails to provide evidence of net income waives any argument that he or she did not have the ability to pay spousal support.

A district court considers the Ruff-Fischer factors when distributing marital property. The court must consider the length of a marriage in determining an equitable division of the marital estate under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines. In a short-term marriage, the court may return to the parties what they brought into the marriage, but the division of property and debt must be equitable.

The guiding principle for an award of attorney's fees is one party's need and the other party's ability to pay. The district court may also consider whether a party's actions have unreasonably increased the time and efforts spent on the dispute.

Bullinger v. Sundog Interactive, Inc., et al. 2025 ND 31
Docket No.: 20240188
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court erred in its application of N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-88.

The North Dakota Business Corporations Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1, provides significant protections and remedies to minority shareholders. Upon the sale of a corporation, N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-87 affords dissenting shareholders the option to obtain the fair value of their shares. Section 10-19.1-87, N.D.C.C., outlines the rights of dissenting shareholders and N.D.C.C. § 10-19.1-88 establishes the procedures for payment.

State v. Janachovsky 2025 ND 30
Docket No.: 20240198
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A criminal defendant who advises the district court that he intends to represent himself, and does so at each hearing after acknowledging an understanding of the rights afforded to him, constitutes the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of counsel.

A defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel when he decides to represent himself after being advised the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.

State v. Littleghost 2025 ND 29
Docket No.: 20240199
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of robbery, accomplice to theft, and theft of a credit device is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Interest of B.V 2025 ND 28
Docket No.: 20240315
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") has no exception for incarceration and neither incarceration nor doubtful prospects for rehabilitation will relieve a Human Service Zone of its duty under ICWA to make active efforts. The circumstances surrounding a parent's incarceration may have a direct bearing on what active efforts are possible.

The juvenile court may consider a Human Service Zone's involvement in its entirety in evaluating active efforts rather than focusing on efforts directed at each parent individually.

ICWA does not clarify the scope of the expert testimony required, nor does it require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the juvenile court's conclusion.

Interest of B.V. 2025 ND 28
Docket No.: 20240316
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") has no exception for incarceration and neither incarceration nor doubtful prospects for rehabilitation will relieve a Human Service Zone of its duty under ICWA to make active efforts. The circumstances surrounding a parent's incarceration may have a direct bearing on what active efforts are possible.

The juvenile court may consider a Human Service Zone's involvement in its entirety in evaluating active efforts rather than focusing on efforts directed at each parent individually.

ICWA does not clarify the scope of the expert testimony required, nor does it require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the juvenile court's conclusion.

Almklov v. State 2025 ND 27
Docket No.: 20240166
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court's order summarily dismissing an application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al. 2025 ND 26
Docket No.: 20240291
Filing Date: 1/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Berger v. Repnow 2025 ND 25
Docket No.: 20240147
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The law on partition of property, N.D.C.C. ch. 32-16, controls the distribution of property accumulated by unmarried partners and cohabitants. Although legal ownership of property is strong evidence of an intention to not share property, legal ownership is not dispositive when the person who is not the legal owner has financially contributed to the acquisition of the property.

Section 32-16-01, N.D.C.C., authorizes proceedings to partition property according to the respective rights of the persons interested therein and for a sale of such property or a part thereof, if it appears that a partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners. Real and personal property may be partitioned in the same action.

Five elements are required to establish unjust enrichment: 1. An enrichment; 2. An impoverishment; 3. A connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4. Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment; and 5. An absence of a remedy provided by law.

A reviewing court needs to know the reasons for the trial court's decision before it can intelligently rule on the issues, and if the trial court does not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision, the reviewing court is left to merely speculate whether it properly applied the law.

State v. McCleary 2025 ND 24
Docket No.: 20240171
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Application of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act is limited to those instances where a detainer has been filed against a person imprisoned in a penal or correctional institution in North Dakota already serving a sentence within the state.

The UMDDA does not apply to prisoners who have been released on parole because the person is no longer imprisoned serving a sentence for a term of commitment.

A defendant who stipulates the statutory habitual offender requirements were met waives any alleged procedural defects by the district court in applying the habitual offender sentencing enhancements.

First National Bank of Omaha v. Yates 2025 ND 23
Docket No.: 20240274
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying a motion for relief from judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

State v. Henderson 2025 ND 22
Docket No.: 20240118
Filing Date: 1/23/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

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.

Interest of E.E. 2025 ND 11
Docket No.: 20240321
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
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) and (4).

State v. Greene 2025 ND 10
Docket No.: 20240128
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a defendant pleaded guilty to eleven sexual offenses is affirmed.

Generally, an open plea waives all non-jurisdictional claims and defenses, including multiplicity challenges.

Only in an extraordinary case will a sentence for a term of imprisonment within the statutory sentencing limits violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association 2025 ND 9
Docket No.: 20240160
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed.

A court considers five factors when assessing whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice: (1) the nature and quality of a nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (2) the quantity of the nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) North Dakota's interest in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. While the first three factors are of primary concern, the fourth and fifth factors are of only secondary importance and are not determinative.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(5)(A), a district court shall not impose monetary sanctions against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2).

A district court abuses its discretion by denying a party's motion for attorney's fees when the party prevails on a Rule 11 motion that is contrary to the plain language of Rule 11.

Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth 2025 ND 8
Docket No.: 20240161
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An unequal property distribution must be adequately explained by the district court.

Valuation of marital assets must be within the range of evidence presented.

A district court must apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when determining property distribution and spousal support in a divorce proceeding.

The proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuance.

Glaum v. Woodrow 2025 ND 7
Docket No.: 20240153
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment dismissing a civil case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Reile v. WSI, et. al. 2025 ND 6
Docket No.: 20240135
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The authority of an administrative agency to adopt administrative rules is authority delegated by the legislative assembly. A properly promulgated regulation has the force and effect of law. A regulation that exceeds or supersedes an agency's statutory authority or conflicts with the statute it implements is invalid. The rationale for this principle is that allowing an administrative agency to promulgate rules that include substantive matters not included in the statute under which it is acting constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power. The legislature has not specifically authorized WSI to promulgate rules regulating the proof required to establish compensability for a mental or psychological condition. WSI exceeded its authority when it promulgated a rule imposing specific burdens and limitations not present in the statute the rule implements.

Interest of R.S. 2025 ND 5
Docket No.: 20240341
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Poseley v. Homer Township, et al. 2025 ND 4
Docket No.: 20240174
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

An aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body's decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2), a claim for attorney's fees not determined by the judgment must be made by motion within 21 days after notice of entry of judgment.

State v. Thompson 2025 ND 3
Docket No.: 20240117
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues. A court's power to exclude relevant evidence should be exercised sparingly.

Issues not raised or considered in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. However, newly raised issues may be addressed on appeal if the issue rises to the level of obvious error. The discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error need not be exercised, because it is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right.

The scope of cross-examination is within the district court's discretion, the propriety of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Reasonable limits may be placed on a defendant's cross-examination, including the exclusion of irrelevant evidence.

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240216
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240217
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240218
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Caspers 2025 ND 1
Docket No.: 20240124
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1, a defendant cannot be ordered to a third period of probation. The statute allows for an initial period of probation and one additional period of probation not to exceed five years.

A district court order denying in part a motion for reduced sentence is affirmed.