Opinions

Waslaski v. State (cross-reference w/ 20120257) 2013 ND 70
Docket No.: 20120342
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A motion for reconsideration is not a formally recognized motion and is not one of the enumerated appealable orders.
In appropriate circumstances, a motion for reconsideration may be treated as a motion to alter or amend a judgment or a motion for relief from a judgment or order.

Jassek v. Workforce Safety and Insurance 2013 ND 69
Docket No.: 20110225
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A binding dispute resolution decision under N.D.C.C. 65-02-20 requested by a medical provider concerning a request for treatment is not appealable to the district court.

Interest of Hoff 2013 ND 68
Docket No.: 20120248
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A district court's decision whether to require an individual to be restrained during a civil commitment proceeding is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
An individualized determination that restraints are necessary must be made after an individual requests that the restraints be removed. Restraints should not exceed what the particular situation requires.
The determination whether restraints are necessary requires an individualized determination on the record of the individual's record, temperament, and desperateness of his situation; the security situation at the courtroom and courthouse; the individual's physical condition; and whether there was an adequate means of providing security that was less prejudicial.
A district court abuses its discretion when it fails to make an independent assessment whether to require an individual to remain restrained during a civil commitment hearing.

Steen v. State (consolidated w/20120399 - 20120402) 2013 ND 67
Docket No.: 20120398
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Appeal from order denying application for post-conviction relief summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

Ennen v. State (cross-reference with 20110003) 2013 ND 66
Docket No.: 20120408
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from an order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of J.P. (Confidential) (consolidated with 20130057 & 20130058) 2013 ND 65
Docket No.: 20130048
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court judgments terminating a mother's parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Waslaski v. State 2013 ND 64
Docket No.: 20120453
Filing Date: 5/14/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment summarily dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust (Cross-reference w/20080209,20120141,20120241) 2013 ND 63
Docket No.: 20120371
Filing Date: 4/11/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying a motion to vacate an order reforming a trust is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

Dawson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation 2013 ND 62
Docket No.: 20120417
Filing Date: 4/11/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Hearsay statements may not be admitted under the present sense impression exception when a sufficient lapse in time has occurred between the event and the declarant's statement, allowing for reflective thought.
Suspension of an individual's driving privileges is improper when a reasonable mind cannot reasonably conclude that the individual drove or was in physical control of a vehicle within two hours of the performance of a chemical test.

Interest of M.H.P. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2013 ND 61
Docket No.: 20120340
Filing Date: 4/10/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars review of a juvenile court finding that a juvenile who committed a delinquent act is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar review of whether a juvenile should have been required to register as a sexual offender.
Once a juvenile court dismisses a juvenile proceeding under N.D.C.C. 27-20-29(2), the State's petition is dismissed, and nothing remains to be adjudicated.