Opinions

Skarsgard v. State (consolidated w/20090334-20090336) 2010 ND 74
Docket No.: 20090333
Filing Date: 5/11/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

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

Wery v. State 2010 ND 73
Docket No.: 20090350
Filing Date: 5/11/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order denying application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

State v. Jackson 2010 ND 72
Docket No.: 20090341
Filing Date: 5/11/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).

State v. Tibor 2010 ND 71
Docket No.: 20090387
Filing Date: 5/11/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author:

Highlight: A trial court order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Tarnavsky v. Tschider 2010 ND 70
Docket No.: 20090348
Filing Date: 4/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author:

Highlight: Summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).

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.