Opinions

Disciplinary Board v. Feland 2012 ND 174
Docket No.: 20110321
Filing Date: 8/20/2012
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A prosecutor's ethical duty to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d) is broader than the duties imposed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 and Brady v. Maryland, and does not vary depending upon the strength of the other evidence in the case.
A prosecutor violates N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d) if she intentionally, knowingly, or negligently fails to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.
An attorney may be disciplined for an isolated instance of negligent conduct.
Although an admonition is intended to be a non-public form of discipline that would ordinarily be issued by an Inquiry Committee, the Supreme Court may nevertheless order an admonition when that is the appropriate sanction for the lawyer's conduct under the North Dakota Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions.
Although the full costs and expenses of a disciplinary proceeding will ordinarily be assessed against the disciplined lawyer, the Supreme Court has discretion to order payment of a lesser amount.

City of Mandan, et al. v. Strata Corp., et al. 2012 ND 173
Docket No.: 20120006
Filing Date: 8/20/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) is inappropriate when further developments in the trial court may moot the issue raised on appeal.

Clausnitzer v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co. 2012 ND 172
Docket No.: 20120107
Filing Date: 8/20/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: To establish a prima facie case of lawful activity discrimination under the Human Rights Act, the plaintiff must raise a genuine issue of material fact that he participated in lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours which was not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.
The strong societal public policy of preventing people from drinking and driving is embodied in the caselaw, the applicable regulations, statutory laws, and pure common sense.

Heier v. N.D. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2012 ND 171
Docket No.: 20120128
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: An agency may not punish an employee multiple times for one instance of misconduct.

Bakke v. D&A Landscaping Co., et al. 2012 ND 170
Docket No.: 20110308
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A precursor to piercing a limited liability company owner's liability shield is that the company be liable to the claimant in the first instance.
Jury instructions on fraud which are given without objection become law of the case.

Burke v. State 2012 ND 169
Docket No.: 20110286
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A person convicted of a crime may move for forensic DNA testing to demonstrate the person's actual innocence if the testing is to be performed on evidence secured in relation to the trial that resulted in the conviction and the evidence was not subje the testing because either the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial or the testing was not available as evidence at the time of the trial.
Whether evidence at issue is "materially relevant" to the defendant's assertion of actual innocence requires consideration of the evidence introduced at trial, as well as an assessment of the evidence defendant is seeking to test.

Matter of S.E. (Confidential) 2012 ND 168
Docket No.: 20120161
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Adoption
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A trial court may not enter an order or judgment that affects the merits of issues properly on appeal.
Dismissal of a petition for adoption is not proper, despite a technical defect in the petition, if the party from whom consent is sought has notice of the petition and can timely exercise its ability to withhold consent.

Rudnick v. Rode 2012 ND 167
Docket No.: 20120076
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The district court must comply with the procedural requirements in N.D.R.Ct. 8.2 when it issues an ex parte interim order, and it must find there are exceptional circumstances justifying the order based on evidence presented by affidavit.
A party moving to modify primary residential responsibility more than two years after a prior order must prove a material change of circumstances has occurred and modification is necessary to serve the child's best interests.
Evidence of child abuse is a material change of circumstances.
A parent is justified in using reasonable force to discipline a child as long as the force does not create a substantial risk of death, serious bodily injury, disfigurement, or gross degradation.
In considering whether a modification of residential responsibility is necessary to serve the child's best interests, the district court must gauge the best interest factors against the backdrop of the stability of the child's relationship with the custodial parent.

Smestad v. Harris (cross-ref. with 20100216) 2012 ND 166
Docket No.: 20120051
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Absent specific instructions from this Court, a district court deciding an issue on remand must exercise its discretion when determining the procedure to follow.
An individual who has performed in accordance with a contract that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds may be entitled to the equitable remedy of restitution.

Falkenstein, et al. v. Dill, et al. 2012 ND 165
Docket No.: 20120113
Filing Date: 8/16/2012
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The substance of a complaint is considered to determine whether the complaint sufficiently raised a claim.
A district court does not abuse its discretion in effectively denying a motion to amend a pleading when such an amendment would result in prejudice to the opposing party.
The least-sophisticated-consumer standard applies in determining whether a debt collector's communication violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.