Opinions

Schmidt, et al. v. Gateway Community Fellowship, et al. 2010 ND 69
Docket No.: 20090047
Filing Date: 4/8/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: To assess recreational use immunity in cases where recreational purposes are mixed with nonrecreational purposes, the proper inquiry requires analysis of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant social and economic aspects of the activity, including the extrinsic nature of the activity, the type of service or commodity offered to the public, and the activity's purpose and consequence.

Davidson v. State 2010 ND 68
Docket No.: 20100022
Filing Date: 4/8/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: When a settlement agreement is merged into a judgment, the agreement is interpreted and enforced as a final judgment and not as a separate contract.
If the language in a judgment is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to the plain meaning of the language.
The Board of Higher Education is the constitutionally established entity for the control and administration of state educational institutions, including the University of North Dakota.
Nothing in the plain language of the settlement agreement limits the Board's constitutional and statutory authority, or requires the Board or UND to continue using the nickname and logo throughout the approval period. Neither does the settlement agreement require the Board and UND to change the nickname and logo.

Davis v. Davis 2010 ND 67
Docket No.: 20090145
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Administrative rules are derivatives of statutes and are construed using well-established principles of statutory construction.
A child support obligor is entitled to be reimbursed for child support paid but which was subsequently supplanted by the children's receipt of lump sum social security dependency benefits.

State v. Loh (CONSOLIDATED W/20090099) 2010 ND 66
Docket No.: 20090098
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Warrantless electronic monitoring and recording of a defendant's face-to-face conversations with a confidential informant, with the informant's consent, occurring in the informant's car does not violate North Dakota's constitutional search and seizure provision.
A defendant's two prior convictions for delivery of marijuana and methamphetamine and for delivery of marijuana qualify as prior offenses to trigger the 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for current convictions for two counts of delivery of methamphetamine.

Odom v. State (Consolidated w/ 20090249) 2010 ND 65
Docket No.: 20090248
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: On a post-conviction ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, if an appellant has failed to meet the first burden of proving that his counsel's representation fell outside of the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, it is unnecessary to address the argument that the appellant was prejudiced by his counsel's claimed deficient performance.

Estate of Fisk 2010 ND 64
Docket No.: 20090157
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
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.

State v. Wolfer 2010 ND 63
Docket No.: 20090323
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The severity of a legal infraction is not relevant when determining whether the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate a stop.
The validity of an investigatory stop depends on the reasonableness of the stopping officer's belief that a law had been broken, not on whether the grounds for the stop would ultimately result in conviction.
Whether an officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that a driver violated North Dakota's practicable lane statute depends on the reasonableness of the officer's suspicion in light of the facts surrounding the stop, including the practicability of maintaining a single lane of travel.

Laib v. Laib 2010 ND 62
Docket No.: 20090284
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: An appellant who fails to raise an argument concerning a denied motion in an appeal cannot bring the same motion two years later and appeal its denial.

State v. Fickert 2010 ND 61
Docket No.: 20090224
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Where a defendant seeks to plead guilty over interactive video network ("IVN"), if defense counsel appears from a site separate from the defendant, the district court must (1) make a finding on the record that the defense counsel's participation from a separate site is necessary; (2) confirm on the record that the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily consented to defense counsel's participation from the separate site; and (3) allow confidential attorney-client communication if requested.
Prior to accepting a defendant's guilty plea, the district court must determine whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the plea to ensure that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged.

RRMC Construction v. Bill Barth 2010 ND 60
Docket No.: 20090292
Filing Date: 4/6/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court does not err when it decides between two permissible views of the evidence.
A district court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial when the district court's judgment is upheld on its merits and when an appellant presents identical arguments challenging the merits of the judgment and the denial of a new trial motion.