Opinions

Matter of C.J.S. 2013 ND 45
Docket No.: 20120370
Filing Date: 4/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment changing a child's surname is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Wisham 2013 ND 44
Docket No.: 20120355
Filing Date: 4/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for contributing to the delinquency of a minor is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3).

State v. Bentz 2013 ND 43
Docket No.: 20120345
Filing Date: 4/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Not Available

Highlight: Criminal judgment for terrorizing is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Froistad v. Schmalenberger, et al. 2013 ND 42
Docket No.: 20120381
Filing Date: 4/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order summarily dismissing Froistad's petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Gaede v. State 2013 ND 41
Docket No.: 20120326
Filing Date: 4/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: District court judgment denying an applicant's petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

Estate of Dionne (cross-reference w/20090016 and 20100353) 2013 ND 40
Docket No.: 20120249
Filing Date: 3/18/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A will does not need to be admitted to probate when a valid distribution agreement signed by all parties with a possible claim in the estate disposes of all property in the estate.
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevent relitigation of issues or claims previously decided.

Disciplinary Board v. Gross 2013 ND 39
Docket No.: 20120456
Filing Date: 3/8/2013
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer publicly reprimanded.

Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort, et al. 2013 ND 38
Docket No.: 20120163
Filing Date: 3/4/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The time for filing a claim for an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or the Human Rights Act depends on whether the claim raises discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts or alleges a hostile work environment.
Discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time-barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges, and each discrete discriminatory act starts a new period for filing charges alleging that act.
A hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice. In deciding whether a hostile work environment exists, a court looks to all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires proof of (1) extreme and outrageous conduct that is (2) intentional or reckless and causes (3) severe emotional distress.
A plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must also show bodily harm.

Hanisch v. Kroshus 2013 ND 37
Docket No.: 20120251
Filing Date: 3/1/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A district court has discretion in deciding to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order and to conduct a hearing on a petition for an order.
The district court may grant a disorderly conduct restraining order if the petitioner complies with the statutory procedural requirements, and if after a hearing the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has engaged in disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person but does not include constitutionally protected activity.

Mees v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation 2013 ND 36
Docket No.: 20120348
Filing Date: 2/28/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The Intoxilyzer test record and checklist is presumed to show fair administration of the approved method until the defendant shows that the evidence as a whole clearly negates the presumed fact.
If a fact-finder can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and conclude the subject could not have eaten, drank, or smoked, the 20-minute wait requirement has been met.