Opinions

Khokha v. Shahin 2009 ND 110
Docket No.: 20080211
Filing Date: 6/22/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Evidence of a plaintiff's bad reputation or bad character is generally admissible in a defamation action.
Specific instances of a plaintiff's conduct or a plaintiff's particular character traits are not relevant in a defamation action unless they were generally known by others in the community.
Reputation evidence in a defamation action is permissible only if it affects the aspects of reputation that were defamed.
There is no liability for defamatory statements that are privileged.
Absolute privilege is limited to situations in which the free exchange of information is so important that even defamatory statements made with actual malice are privileged, while qualified privilege may be abused and does not provide absolute immunity from liability.
Whether a qualified privilege is abused is a question of fact.

Miller v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al. 2009 ND 109
Docket No.: 20080238
Filing Date: 6/19/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Under North Dakota's workers compensation law and procedure, a "rehearing" is an evidentiary hearing.
WSI has the responsibility to weigh the credibility of the medical evidence and resolve conflicting medical opinions, and a reviewing court is limited to determining only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined that the factual conclusions were proved by the weight of the evidence from the entire record.

State v. Golden 2009 ND 108
Docket No.: 20080301
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A district court may not grant a defendant's motion to suppress statements made to police officers while the defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation.
A defendant who goes to a police station voluntarily, understanding that questioning will ensue, and who is told by the interviewing officers that he does not have to answer any questions, that he is not under arrest, and that he is free to leave at any time, and who, finally, leaves the police station unobstructed, is not in custody for Miranda purposes.

Eberle v. Eberle 2009 ND 107
Docket No.: 20080317
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Interlocutory orders generally are not appealable and may be revised or reconsidered any time before the final order or judgment is entered.
A settlement agreement is unconscionable and may not be enforced if there are procedural abuses arising out of the contract formation and substantive abuses relating to the terms of the agreement.
When a settlement agreement is rapidly entered into, only one party is represented by an attorney, and the terms of the agreement are one-sided it strongly indicates the agreement was entered into under duress or undue influence.

Matter of Midgett (Cross-Ref. w/20070109) 2009 ND 106
Docket No.: 20080255
Filing Date: 6/17/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: In addition to the three statutory requirements, the State must prove the committed individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior in order to satisfy substantive due process.
The district court must specifically state the facts on which it relied to determine an individual has serious difficulty in controlling his behavior.

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.