Opinions

Interest of B.B. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Cross Ref w/20070233) 2010 ND 9
Docket No.: 20090118
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Juvenile Law
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A pattern of parental conduct can form a basis for a reasonable prediction of future behavior.
The juvenile court may extend a dispositional order if it finds the child is deprived and reasonable efforts have been provided to finalize the permanent plan or reunify the child with the parents.
The custodian has an obligation and right to determine the nature of care, placement, and treatment of a child considering the child's best interests.

Matter of Hanenberg 2010 ND 8
Docket No.: 20090135
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The definition of a sexually dangerous individual, in addition to the three statutory requirements, requires a nexus between the disorder and dangerousness, including evidence showing the individual to be committed has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, which distinguishes a sexually dangerous individual from other dangerous persons.

Disciplinary Board v. Askew 2010 ND 7
Docket No.: 20090195
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Disciplinary proceedings are reviewed de novo on the record.
Because the hearing panel has the opportunity to hear witnesses and observe their demeanor, special deference is given to the hearing panel's findings on matters of conflicting evidence.

Horob v. Farm Credit Services of N.D., et al. 2010 ND 6
Docket No.: 20090111
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Under the Uniform Commercial Code a security agreement may create a security interest in after-acquired collateral and may provide that the collateral will secure any obligation, including all existing and future loans or advances.
A party may not use extrinsic evidence to directly contradict express, unambiguous terms of a contract.

Heinle v. Heinle 2010 ND 5
Docket No.: 20090065
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A district court may determine the proper weight to assign to a custody investigator's recommendations, and the court's award of custody will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.
When awarding spousal support, a district court must consider the factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines and explain the basis for its award.
A district court's award of attorney fees will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion.
A district court shall not use an extrapolated annual income to calculate a party's child support obligation unless the court specifically finds the income reflected by the party's previous tax return is not an accurate indicator of future income.

Everett v. State 2010 ND 4
Docket No.: 20090244
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
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)(6) and (7).

State v. Jensen 2010 ND 3
Docket No.: 20090154
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A probationer's right to counsel at a revocation of probation hearing is statutorily based.
A probationer's waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Whether a probationer voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived the right to counsel is reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard of review.

Edwards v. Edwards 2010 ND 2
Docket No.: 20090043
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, Northwest Judicial District 2010 ND 1
Docket No.: 20090366
Filing Date: 1/6/2010
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author:

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Williston.

Interest of W.K. (Confidential) 2009 ND 218
Docket No.: 20090351
Filing Date: 12/22/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A district court may order involuntary treatment and hospitalization or involuntary treatment with medication only if the court finds a person qualifies as a "person requiring treatment" as defined by N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-02(12).
To qualify as a "person requiring treatment," the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the person is mentally ill, and (2) if not treated, there is a reasonable expectation that the person presents a serious risk of harm to herself, others, or property.
A district court's order for involuntary treatment and hospitalization or involuntary treatment with medication will be reversed on appeal only if clearly erroneous.