Opinions

Kaspari v. N.D. Dep't. of Human Services 2011 ND 124
Docket No.: 20100379
Filing Date: 6/24/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Administrative regulations are derivatives of statutes and are construed under rules for statutory construction.
A Medicaid applicant's recipient liability is the amount of monthly net income remaining after all appropriate deductions, disregards, and Medicaid income levels specified in the applicable Medicaid regulations have been allowed, and an applicant is not entitled to deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes paid for the applicant's interest in a life estate.

State v. Seewalker 2011 ND 123
Docket No.: 20100201
Filing Date: 6/24/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order denying motion to withdraw guilty pleas is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Zink, et al. v. Enzminger Steel LLC 2011 ND 122
Docket No.: 20100359
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: In the cautious exercise of its discretion, a district court may unilaterally dismiss a complaint for failure to state a valid claim. The court must, however, give the parties notice of its intentions and allow for an opportunity to respond.
If a motion to dismiss demands proof outside of the pleadings, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment.

Godon v. Kindred School District 2011 ND 121
Docket No.: 20100356
Filing Date: 6/23/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A written contract can be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed agreement, and the agreement to alter the terms of the contract must generally be supported by new or additional consideration.
A party asserting breach of contract has the burden of proving the elements of a prima facie case for breach, which are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach of the contract; and (3) damages which flow from the breach.
Frustration of purpose occurs when after a contract is made, a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.
Class-of-one protection does not apply to public employees under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

In the Interest of L.T., a child (CONFIDENTIAL) 2011 ND 120
Docket No.: 20100329
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The statute restricting a parent's right to court-appointed counsel during certain phases of a juvenile delinquency proceeding does not violate the parent's constitutional right to equal protection under law.
A juvenile court is not required to inform a parent of the collateral consequences of a juvenile's admissions to charges.

Interest of R.A. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2011 ND 119
Docket No.: 20100343
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A juvenile case must be transferred to district court if the child was fourteen years of age or more at the time of the alleged conduct and the court determines there is probable cause to believe the child committed the offense of gross sexual imposition of a victim by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping.
Probable cause is a minimal burden of proof, and probable cause exists if there is a definite probability based on substantial evidence the offense has been committed.
Imminent means near at hand, mediate rather than immediate, close rather than touching, on the point of happening, threatening, menacing, or perilous.
The juvenile transfer statute requires a juvenile court to transfer the offense of gross sexual imposition by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping, and does not require the threat be of physical harm to the victim.

Interest of T.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2011 ND 118
Docket No.: 20100322
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The legislature has the power to determine the age of criminal responsibility. Children over the age of seven are presumed capable of committing a criminal offense.
Juveniles have a due process right not to be subjected to the adjudicative stage of juvenile proceedings while incompetent. A juvenile court must hold a competency hearing when evidence establishes sufficient doubt as to the juvenile's competency to proceed.

State v. Howard 2011 ND 117
Docket No.: 20110008
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A court does not abuse its discretion in denying an application for post-conviction relief when the factual basis to support the defendant's plea of guilty to delivery of a controlled substance establishes the defendant admitted to transferring the controlled substance to the buyer in his vehicle.

State v. Hinojosa 2011 ND 116
Docket No.: 20100218
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: When a defendant, through his own actions or the actions of his attorney, substantially contributes to the State's not bringing charges to trial within the 90-day period required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, the defendant cannot merely rely upon expiration of the 90-day period to have the charges against him dismissed.
Good cause for delay exists when defense counsel requires additional time for preparation and investigation to ensure that a defendant receives effective assistance of counsel.
A defendant who claims insufficient evidence bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.

G.K.T. v. T.L.T., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2011 ND 115
Docket No.: 20100381
Filing Date: 6/21/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: In assessing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the district court must first determine if, as a matter of law, the defendant's conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to permit recovery; but if the district court determines that reasonable people could differ, the question of whether the defendant's conduct is sufficiently extreme and outrageous is left to the trier-of-fact.
Liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.