Opinions

Cartier, et al. v. Northwestern Electric, Inc. 2010 ND 14
Docket No.: 20090045
Filing Date: 1/25/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A denial of a motion for new trial is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard.
When a district court has chosen a specific jury instruction, a reviewing court should not be quick to second-guess its choice if there is evidence or inferences from the evidence to support the instruction. Only scant evidence may be needed to support a jury instruction.
Under North Dakota law, counsel must object specifically to a contested jury instruction.
When a motion for a new trial is made, the party making the motion is limited on appeal to a review of the grounds presented to the lower court.

Shotbolt v. N.D. Workforce Safety and Insurance 2010 ND 13
Docket No.: 20090120
Filing Date: 1/15/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The clear intent of N.D.C.C. ch. 65-05.1 is to rehabilitate an injured worker so the worker may return to substantial gainful employment, meaning actual rehabilitation with a realistic opportunity to return to work.
A rehabilitation plan is appropriate when it meets the requirements of N.D.C.C. ch. 65-05.1 and gives the claimant a reasonable opportunity to obtain employment.
WSI must take a claimant's preexisting functional limitations into account when determining whether certain employment options present an opportunity for substantial gainful employment.

Reciprocal Discipline of Varriano (cross ref. 20090258) 2010 ND 12
Docket No.: 20090385
Filing Date: 1/14/2010
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered.

Lamb v. State Board of Law Examiners 2010 ND 11
Docket No.: 20090131
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Mandamus
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Admission to Practice Rule 13 is neither subordinate to N.D.C.C. 44-04-18 nor unconstitutional under N.D. Const. art. XI, sec. 6.
The Supreme Court has the authority to admit attorneys to the Bar of North Dakota.
Where courts of this State have construed a statute and such construction is supported by the long acquiescence on the part of the legislative assembly and by the failure of the assembly to amend the law, it will be presumed that such interpretation of the statute is in accordance with legislative intent.

State v. Thompson 2010 ND 10
Docket No.: 20090117
Filing Date: 1/12/2010
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: At trial, a party must renew an objection made in a pretrial motion to exclude evidence to properly preserve the issue for appellate review.
Authentication of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.
The proponent of offered evidence need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity or conclusively prove the evidence is what it purports to be; rather, the proponent must provide sufficient proof, including circumstantial evidence, for a reasonable juror to find the evidence is what it purports to be.
A party's own statement is not hearsay.

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.