Opinions

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.

State v. Hartson 2024 ND 78
Docket No.: 20230243
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Changing the culpability level of the crime charged is not a modification of a statute. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02(4), a lesser degree of culpability is satisfied if the proven degree of culpability is higher.

The district court's failure to submit statutory definition of that term was not obvious error affecting defendant's substantial rights.

It is not clearly established law in North Dakota that, where the State alleges multiple predicate felonies in a felony murder prosecution under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(c), the district court must include an instruction that the jury must unanimously agree on the predicate felony to convict the defendant of murder.
Not including separate verdict forms for each predicate felony was not obvious error.

There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of murder.

Musland v. Musland 2024 ND 77
Docket No.: 20230345
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A marital distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, and while assessing a property division, a district court may consider the importance of preserving the viability of a business operation like a family farm. Liquidation of an ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a last resort.

A district court property division granting one party a net estate of $3,224,357 while assigning them virtually no debt, and the other a net estate of $4,961,915 included all of the debt, almost no liquidity, and no retirement funds, was not clearly erroneous.

A district court does not need to consider potential tax implications of a property division when the record failed to support a conclusion that the sale of the property was imminent, failed to indicate the tax liability, or quantified a specific liability to the court.

A party is not entitled to an accrual of rent for the use of marital property during the pendency of divorce proceedings absent agreement or seeking district court intervention during the interim.
Language in a right to first refusal that does not clarify if the right is triggered by a response to "any" offer made to purchase property or if it is triggered by a party's "acceptance" of an offer is ambiguous.

Estate of Kish 2024 ND 76
Docket No.: 20230275
Filing Date: 4/26/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A two-step analysis is required to determine whether an order is appealable. First, for this Court to have appellate jurisdiction, the order being appealed must meet statutory criteria for appealability. Second, for this Court to consider the appeal at this time, the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) must have been satisfied.
Decisions have stated that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction when an appellant fails to obtain N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification when required, but dismissal under Rule 54(b) is not for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The parties did not request Rule 54(b) certification. The case is remanded under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3)(B) so that the district court may determine in the first instance whether a Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate.

State v. Fuglesten 2024 ND 74
Docket No.: 20230299
Filing Date: 4/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a conditional plea is reversed and remanded to allow for withdrawal of the guilty plea because law enforcement illegally entered the home without exigent circumstances. If a misdemeanant is fleeing law enforcement, then exigent circumstances are required to permit law enforcement to enter the misdemeanant's home.

Berdahl v. Berdahl 2024 ND 73
Docket No.: 20230278
Filing Date: 4/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: When this Court has made a legal pronouncement and remanded a case for further proceedings, the parties may not relitigate the issue and the district court is required to follow the terms of our decision. The district court has some discretion on the procedures used on remand. However, that discretion is not without bounds and must be exercised within the scope of our decision. Adverse or erroneous rulings do not, by themselves, demonstrate bias of a district court judge.

Schmidt v. Hess Corp., et al. 2024 ND 72
Docket No.: 20230272
Filing Date: 4/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: To prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach of duty.
The employer of an independent contractor who retains control of part of the work owes a duty of care to the independent contractor' s employees to exercise the retained control with reasonable
care.
A property owner who hires an independent contractor may be held liable to the independent contractor and its employees for injuries resulting from hazards at the workplace when the property
owner retains control over the work.

Cichos, et al. v. Dakota Eye Institute, P.C., et al. 2024 ND 71
Docket No.: 20230212
Filing Date: 4/19/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., preserves our long-standing policy against piecemeal appeals. When this Court considers the merits in a case involving a N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification, it does so because the resolution of the issue on appeal will always need to be resolved and is separate from the issue left to be adjudicated.
To establish a prima facie case of professional negligence, a plaintiff must produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, violation of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of. To warrant a finding that a person's conduct is the proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be the natural and probable result of the conduct and must have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by that person as a probable result of the conduct. Mere speculation is not enough.