Opinions

State v. McGeehan 2012 ND 207
Docket No.: 20120164
Filing Date: 10/23/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Criminal judgment after a jury found a defendant guilty of simple assault on a police officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Disciplinary Board v. Hankey 2012 ND 206
Docket No.: 20120304
Filing Date: 10/15/2012
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer reprimanded.

Disciplinary Board v. Summers 2012 ND 205
Docket No.: 20120317
Filing Date: 10/1/2012
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered.

Walstad v. Walstad 2012 ND 204
Docket No.: 20120059
Filing Date: 10/1/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Punitive damages are not authorized in an independent action in equity challenging a prior divorce judgment.

Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al. (Cross-reference w/20080250) 2012 ND 203
Docket No.: 20110163
Filing Date: 10/1/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The "law of the case" doctrine is the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.
The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms.

Tarnavsky v. Tarnavsky, et al. (cross-reference w/20020292, 20050457, 20070161) 2012 ND 202
Docket No.: 20120200
Filing Date: 9/28/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Civil judgment denying an applicant's petition for an emergency temporary restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

Wheeler v. Southport Seven Planned Unit Dev., et al. 2012 ND 201
Docket No.: 20110323
Filing Date: 9/27/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The creation of a planned unit development ("PUD") is a legislative act, and PUD provisions are zoning ordinances. Restrictive covenants and zoning ordinances are tools used to restrict the use of real property.
A covenant to contribute one's share of the neighborhood's maintenance expenses is an affirmative covenant.
Covenants contained in a grant of an estate in real property, which are made for the direct benefit of the property or some part of it then in existence, run with the land, including covenants for the payment of rent, taxes, or assessments upon the land on the part of a grantee.

Interest of B.K. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2012 ND 200
Docket No.: 20120330
Filing Date: 9/25/2012
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).

Kohanowski v. Burkhardt 2012 ND 199
Docket No.: 20110317
Filing Date: 9/25/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: An oral agreement to pay money in installments for a period longer than one year, and which does not include express terms governing prepayment, is barred by the statute of frauds.
Partial performance will remove an oral agreement from the statute of frauds only if it unmistakably points to and is consistent only with the existence of the oral agreement and cannot be accounted for on some other hypothesis.

State v. Gagnon 2012 ND 198
Docket No.: 20110311
Filing Date: 9/25/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless search or seizure of evidence.
Warrantless search of home is not justified by need to prevent imminent destruction of evidence when marijuana plants remain in window for days before officers approach the home without a warrant.
Warrantless search of home is not justified by need to protect officer safety when the only articulable fact supporting the safety concern is the possibility that an unknown person could be inside the residence.