Opinions

Wojahn v. Levi 2015 ND 50
Docket No.: 20140315
Filing Date: 3/19/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending driving privileges is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Kirkpatrick v. State (cross-reference w/20110312) 2015 ND 49
Docket No.: 20140321
Filing Date: 3/19/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment denying postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Holkesvig v. Hutton, et al. 2015 ND 48
Docket No.: 20140320
Filing Date: 3/19/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgment dismissing complaint without prejudice is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Owens v. State 2015 ND 47
Docket No.: 20140282
Filing Date: 3/16/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Romero v. State (cross-reference w/20110337) 2015 ND 46
Docket No.: 20140287
Filing Date: 3/3/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Harns 2015 ND 45
Docket No.: 20140236
Filing Date: 2/25/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Driving under the influence conviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Royal Jewelers, Inc., et al. v. Light, et al. 2015 ND 44
Docket No.: 20140125
Filing Date: 2/20/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Payment must be applied in the manner directed by the debtor if a debtor manifests an intention or desire to apply a payment to one of two or more obligations to a creditor.
A district court's finding about a debtor's manifestation of intent for application of payment to one of two or more obligations is reviewed under the clearly erroneous rule.
A district court's finding about equitable estoppel is reviewed under the clearly erroneous rule.

State v. Gasal 2015 ND 43
Docket No.: 20140147
Filing Date: 2/12/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Violations of the ministerial aspects of N.D.R.Crim.P. 41 relating to search warrants seldom result in the suppression of evidence unless there is a showing of prejudice, or an intentional or deliberate disregard of the rule.
N.D.R.Crim.P.36 regarding clerical errors, analyzes the ability of a district court to correct its own mistakes and does not apply in search warrant cases.

Seay v. Seay (cross-reference w/20110332) 2015 ND 42
Docket No.: 20140312
Filing Date: 2/12/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A district court's decision on whether to modify primary residential responsibility is a finding of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.
If a court determines a material change of circumstances has occurred, it must analyze the best interest factors outlined in N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2 before denying a motion to modify primary residential responsibility.

State v. White Bird (cross-reference w/ 20130381) 2015 ND 41
Docket No.: 20130402
Filing Date: 2/12/2015
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The corollary to a criminal defendant's constitutional right to counsel is a defendant's right to self-representation. To represent oneself, a criminal defendant must voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive the right to counsel.
A district court has a continuing responsibility during trial to decide whether a self-represented defendant is competent to present his or her own defense. To ensure the defendant is afforded a fair trial, a district court can appoint counsel for the defendant during trial if the court determines the defendant is no longer competent to present his or her own defense.
A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party.