Opinions

Powell, et al. v. Statoil Oil & Gas 2023 ND 235
Docket No.: 20230098
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The obligation to pay royalties under an oil and gas lease is a contract contained in a conveyance or instrument affecting title to real property within the meaning of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-15(2). This ten-year statute of limitations applies to a claim for untimely payment of royalties under an oil and gas lease.

If an operator fails to notify a mineral owner of a title dispute affecting the owner’s distribution of royalties and fails to pay royalties within 150 days after oil or gas produced under the lease is marketed, and cancellation of the lease is not sought, the operator must pay interest on the unpaid royalties at 18% per annum until paid.

Ebel, et al. v. Engelhart, et al. 2023 ND 234
Docket No.: 20230116
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment is reversed because the court misapplied the law by applying the statute of frauds when it was not specifically pled under N.D.R.Civ.P. 8.

Rule 8(c), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires the statute of frauds to be specifically pled as an affirmative defense.

State v. Hamilton 2023 ND 233
Docket No.: 20230052
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: When a defendant pleads guilty on open and unconditional plea, the defendant waives his right to challenge the rejection of a plea agreement.

During sentencing, failure to preserve an objection precludes a later assertion unless a defendant establishes obvious error. Obvious error is exercised only with extreme caution.

Interest of Wedmore 2023 ND 232
Docket No.: 20230150
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An appeal to determine if a person remains a sexually dangerous individual must be taken within 30 days of an entry of an order denying discharge.

State v. Bearce 2023 ND 231
Docket No.: 20230120
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court does not err when reducing a defendant’s sentence within the 120-day period mandated by Rule 35(b), N.D.R.Crim.P.

It is mandatory under Rule 35(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., that the sentencing judge, whenever reducing a sentence as permitted by Rule 35, give his reasons for the reduction.

This Court’s power on appeal is limited by N.D.C.C. § 29-28-35. When the State appeals, this Court cannot reverse an order of the district court if doing so would increase the defendant’s sentence.

Neither the district court nor the State may invoke section 25 rights on behalf of a victim and when no individual exercises the victim’s right to participate in any post-judgment processes and procedures, a court does not err when it issues an order on a post-judgment without the victim’s consideration.

Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck, et al. 2023 ND 230
Docket No.: 20220357
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel precludes litigation of issues actually litigated and necessary to the outcome of the prior case, even if such issues are subsequently presented as part of a different claim. Collateral estoppel requires a final judgment on the merits.

An aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body’s decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision. Landowners are not foreclosed from challenging whether a drain improvement project is authorized by law in defending against an eminent domain action.

A water resource district may not accumulate a fund exceeding the six-year maximum maintenance levy or obligate the district for costs beyond the maximum maintenance levy without the approval of the majority of the landowners.

Before property can be taken it must appear that the use to which it is to be applied is a use authorized by law. The public uses authorized by N.D.C.C. § 32-15-02(3) carry the additional requirement that the mode of apportioning and collecting the costs of such improvement shall be such as may be provided in the statutes by which the same may be authorized.

Sargent Cty. Water Resource District v. Beck, et al. 2023 ND 230
Docket No.: 20220357
Filing Date: 12/15/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Matter of Overboe (CONFIDENTIAL) 2023 ND 229
Docket No.: 20230352
Filing Date: 12/1/2023
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer transferred to Incapacity to Practice Law Status

Holm v. Holm 2023 ND 228
Docket No.: 20230128
Filing Date: 12/1/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The petitioner for a disorderly conduct restraining order bears the burden of demonstrating how a respondent’s conduct affected the petitioner’s safety, security, or privacy. Section 12.1-31.2-01, N.D.C.C., requires the district court to make specific findings concerning the respondent’s intent.

State v. Haney (consolidated w/20220367) 2023 ND 227
Docket No.: 20220366
Filing Date: 12/1/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: To successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permits no reasonable inference of guilt.

In considering a defendant’s claim on appeal that his right to a public trial was violated, this Court first considers whether the claim of error was preserved at trial and then considers the threshold question of whether there was a closure implicating the public trial right.

The appellant bears the burden to demonstrate the public was excluded from a proceeding to which the public had a right to be present.

A party pursuing a constitutional claim must make a strong case supported by both fact and law or forgo the claim.