Opinions

State v. Ripley (consolidated w/20080291) 2009 ND 105
Docket No.: 20080290
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: When determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to continue a trial, this Court uses the same factors that are used to determine whether a trial court had good cause to grant a motion to continue a trial. The factors are: (1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) defendant's assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.
The matter of substitution of appointed counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent a showing of good cause for the substitution, a refusal to substitute appointed counsel is not an abuse of discretion.
Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a), any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights is harmless and must be disregarded.
If a party raises an issue but fails to provide supporting argument, reasoning, or citation to relevant authorities, we deem the argument to be without merit and consider it waived.

Matter of A.M. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2009 ND 104
Docket No.: 20080204
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A district court order denying a petitioner's request for discharge from commitment as a "sexually dangerous individual" is reviewed under a modified clearly erroneous standard and is affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or the order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The State has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the committed individual remains a "sexually dangerous individual."
"Sexually dangerous individual" is defined as an individual who is shown to have engaged in sexually predatory conduct and who has a congenital or acquired condition that is manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction that makes that individual likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct which constitute a danger to the physical or mental health or safety of others.
The definition of "sexually dangerous individual" also requires a nexus between the disorder and dangerousness, proof of which encompasses evidence showing the individual has serious difficulty in controlling his behavior.

Darby v. Swenson, Inc. 2009 ND 103
Docket No.: 20080215
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A district court has wide discretion in deciding matters relating to amending pleadings after the time for an amendment as a matter of course has passed.
A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to amend the complaint when such an amendment would be a futile act.
An amendment is futile for purposes of determining whether leave to amend should be granted, if the added claim would not survive a motion for summary judgment.
All warranties may be properly excluded if that exclusion is part of the bargain between the parties.

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).