Opinions

Interest of D.V.A. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Cross-Ref w/20080319) 2010 ND 192
Docket No.: 20100091
Filing Date: 10/19/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author:

Highlight: Order continuing commitment as sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

State v. Peltier 2010 ND 191
Docket No.: 20100069
Filing Date: 10/19/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author:

Highlight: Conviction on two counts of gross sexual imposition summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Matter of M.D. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2010 ND 190
Docket No.: 20100058
Filing Date: 10/19/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Fehl-Haber v. State 2010 ND 189
Docket No.: 20100019
Filing Date: 10/19/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgment denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Pankowski 2010 ND 188
Docket No.: 20100115
Filing Date: 10/16/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction of possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and with intent to flee or attempt to elude a police officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Disciplinary Board v. Lucas 2010 ND 187
Docket No.: 20100104
Filing Date: 9/29/2010
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Rule 4.2 of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct, prohibiting attorneys from communicating with a represented party, applies to attorneys who are representing themselves.

Estate of Fisk 2010 ND 186
Docket No.: 20090157
Filing Date: 9/21/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The review of fees paid or taken by a personal representative is left to the sound discretion of the district court.
The $3,000 funeral expense limit in N.D.C.C. 50-24.1-07(1) applies to a deceased medical assistance recipient's spouse's funeral expenses.
The Department of Human Service's right to recovery under N.D.C.C. 50-24.1-07 is limited to estate assets the medical assistance recipient had an interest in at the time of death, and does not extend to the surviving spouses's separately owned assets.

Sailer v. Sailer 2010 ND 185
Docket No.: 20100038
Filing Date: 9/21/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The substantive enforceability of a premarital agreement is a matter of law to be decided by the court.
Determining whether a premarital agreement is "clearly unconscionable" requires the district court to make complete factual findings about the parties' relative property values, in addition to the contesting spouse's other resources and foreseeable needs.

State v. Adams 2010 ND 184
Docket No.: 20090383
Filing Date: 9/21/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Those who voluntarily choose to live with probationers assume the risk that they, too, will have diminished Fourth Amendment rights in areas shared with the probationer.
What may be considered outside the scope of general consent and thus an unreasonable search may be considered reasonable under the terms of a court-ordered condition allowing for the warrantless search of a probationer.

Quality Bank, et al. v. Cavett 2010 ND 183
Docket No.: 20100024
Filing Date: 9/21/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Whether a contract is unconscionable is a question of law for the court to decide and depends upon the factual circumstances of each case.
When determining whether a contract is unconscionable, courts look for procedural unconscionability, which encompasses factors relating to unfair surprise, oppression, and inequality of bargaining power, and substantive unconscionability, which deals with the harshness of the contract, as well as whether the contract is commercially reasonable.