Opinions

Disciplinary Board v. O'Donnell (cross ref. 20070340) 2008 ND 17
Docket No.: 20080039
Filing Date: 2/20/2008
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer orderd.

State v. Carlsen 2008 ND 16
Docket No.: 20070126
Filing Date: 2/4/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction of reckless endangerment under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, East Central Judicial District 2008 ND 15
Docket No.: 20070368
Filing Date: 2/4/2008
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo in the East Central Judicial District.

Wold v. Wold 2008 ND 14
Docket No.: 20060342
Filing Date: 1/23/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Generally, in a divorce, a court's property valuations are not clearly erroneous if they are within the range of the evidence presented.
Under N.D.C.C. 14-05-24.1, a district court in a divorce case may require one party to pay spousal support to the other for any period of time.
Spousal support awards must be made in consideration of the disadvantaged spouse's needs and the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay, but it is not necessary for the court to determine a spouse is disadvantaged by the divorce to award spousal support to that spouse.
Property division and spousal support are interrelated and often must be considered together.
It is within the district court's discretion to order security for a spousal support obligation.

State v. Desjarlais (Consolidated w/20070157) 2008 ND 13
Docket No.: 20070156
Filing Date: 1/22/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: There is no obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) unless there is a clear deviation from a clearly established rule of law.

Van Sickle, et al. v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc., et al. 2008 ND 12
Docket No.: 20070154
Filing Date: 1/22/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy unless the creditor received notice of the bankruptcy proceedings.
State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide whether a creditor's claim has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding if the creditor claims he did not have notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceeding.
Claims for conversion and breach of contract may arise under the same facts if the defendant's conduct would give rise to liability independent of the fact that a contract exists between the parties.
A claim for tortious interference ordinarily requires a showing that a person who is not a party to the contract interfered with the contract.
The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions.

Koble v. Koble 2008 ND 11
Docket No.: 20070198
Filing Date: 1/17/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Leno v. Department of Transportation 2008 ND 10
Docket No.: 20070213
Filing Date: 1/17/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The Department is not required to show an Intoxilyzer machine has been recalibrated following a movement of the machine to prove an Intoxilyzer test was fairly administered.
An agency's decision will be affirmed if its findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. When deciding whether a preponderance of the evidence supports an agency's findings, we do not re-weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the agency.

Interest of J.S., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2008 ND 9
Docket No.: 20070123
Filing Date: 1/17/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Kourajian v. Kourajian 2008 ND 8
Docket No.: 20070175
Filing Date: 1/17/2008
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A party seeking custody modification under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(4) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the party brings a prima facie case, by alleging, with supporting affidavits, sufficient facts which, if uncontradicted, would support a custody modification in favor of that party.
The purpose of the prima facie case requirement in N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(4) is to avoid holding custody modification hearings based on mere allegations alone.