Opinions

Matter of Rush 2009 ND 102
Docket No.: 20080337
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: In civil commitments of sexually dangerous individuals, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence a nexus between the individual's disorder and the likelihood that he or she will engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct. Subsequently, the district court must specifically state in its memorandum opinion the facts upon which it relied in finding that such a nexus existed.
The weakness or non-existence of a basis for an expert's opinion goes to their credibility, and not necessarily to the admissibility of the opinion evidence.
While a district court must conduct a commitment proceeding to determine whether an individual is a sexually dangerous individual within sixty days after a finding of probable cause, the court may extend this time period for good cause.
The district court has wide discretion over the mode and order of presenting evidence, and actions of the court regarding the mode and order of presenting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

Matter of R. A. S. (Confidential) 2009 ND 101
Docket No.: 20090001
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The United States Supreme Court has held substantive due process rights require an individual facing commitment must be shown to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. This constitutional requirement may be viewed as part of the definition of a sexually dangerous individual.
At a discharge hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior.

Interest of I.W. & D.A. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2009 ND 100
Docket No.: 20090032
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Barbie v. Minko Construction, Inc., et al. 2009 ND 99
Docket No.: 20080214
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Speculation is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment, and a scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to support a claim.
The plaintiff must prove not only that she has been injured by a negligent act, but must prove the identity of the person responsible for that act.
If, based upon the evidence presented, it is equally probable that the negligence was that of someone other than the defendant, the plaintiff has not met her burden of proving a breach of duty by the defendant.
Res ipsa loquitur applies only if the plaintiff proves that the instrumentality which caused the plaintiff's injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant.

State v. Deutscher 2009 ND 98
Docket No.: 20080207
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The State may appeal from an order quashing an information, but there can be no appeal from a true judgment of acquittal. If a trial court's decision resolves some or all of the factual elements of the events charged, the decision is a judgment of acquittal rather than a quashing of the information.
An attempted appeal may be treated as a request for supervisory writ.
A trial court may not, on its own motion, enter a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29(c).

Moore v. State (Cross-Ref. with 20060224) 2009 ND 97
Docket No.: 20090036
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
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)(6) and (7).

McArthur v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Insurance 2009 ND 96
Docket No.: 20090081
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming an order of Workforce Safety & Insurance denying further disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Interest of S.J., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Consolidated w/20080329) 2009 ND 95
Docket No.: 20080328
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author:

Highlight: Termination of parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Asset Acceptance, LLC v. Nash 2009 ND 94
Docket No.: 20080345
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author:

Highlight: Order denying motion to vacate a default judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

State v. Kurtenbach (consolidated w/20080339 & 20080340) 2009 ND 93
Docket No.: 20080338
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Criminal judgments for theft by deception, theft of property, forgery, giving false information to law enforcement and unauthorized use of personal identifying information are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).