Opinions

Schiff v. Schiff 2013 ND 142
Docket No.: 20120394
Filing Date: 8/29/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The basis for the decision regarding spousal support must be articulated.
Debts incurred during the parties' separation but before their divorce are included in the calculation of the marital estate.
A district court's valuation of marital assets is not clearly erroneous when it is within the range of the evidence presented by the parties.

State v. Borner 2013 ND 141
Docket No.: 20120388
Filing Date: 8/29/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Conspiracy to commit murder under N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-04, criminal conspiracy, and 12.1-16-01(1)(b), extreme indifference murder, is not a cognizable offense.
Intent to achieve a particular result which is criminal is an essential element of criminal conspiracy.
Conspiracy to commit murder requires (1) an intent to cause death, (2) an agreement to commit murder, and (3) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

Interest of M.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2013 ND 140
Docket No.: 20130230
Filing Date: 8/29/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Mental health commitment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of N.R., a Child (CONFIDENTIAL) (Consolidated w/ 20130213 & 20130218) 2013 ND 139
Docket No.: 20130212
Filing Date: 8/29/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author:

Highlight: Order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 3, Northeast Central Judicial District 2013 ND 138
Docket No.: 20130190
Filing Date: 8/14/2013
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author:

Highlight: Judgeship retained in Grand Forks.

Disciplinary Board v. Hoffman 2013 ND 137
Docket No.: 20120290
Filing Date: 7/23/2013
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author:

Highlight: A lawyer is precluded from making an agreement to charge or collect an unreasonable fee.
Even though an agreement between a lawyer and client may designate a minimum fee as nonrefundable, a lawyer may still be required to refund unearned portions under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System, et al. 2013 ND 136
Docket No.: 20130013
Filing Date: 7/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A party resisting a motion for summary judgment cannot rely on unsupported and conclusory allegations but must present competent admissible evidence to raise a material issue of fact.
A communication is not libelous if the language is not fairly susceptible to a defamatory meaning.
A plaintiff claiming tortious interference with a prospective business advantage must prove an independently tortious or otherwise unlawful act of interference.
A plaintiff claiming a state antitrust violation must show a contract, combination or conspiracy between two or more people in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce.

Judicial Redistricting (consol. w/ 20130221) 2013 ND 135
Docket No.: 20130153
Filing Date: 7/18/2013
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Counties moved from South Central to Southeast Judicial District and Northwest Judicial District divided into two districts, effective January 1, 2014.

State v. Gipp 2013 ND 134
Docket No.: 20120412
Filing Date: 7/18/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Evidence not relevant to the proceeding is not admissible.

Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, et al. (Cons. w/20130050) 2013 ND 133
Docket No.: 20130049
Filing Date: 7/18/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. A party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal.
The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the district court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case.