Opinions

Bowman v. ND Workforce Safety and Insurance 2007 ND 200
Docket No.: 20070227
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author:

Highlight: A judgment affirming an order of Workforce Safety and Insurance denying an application for workers compensation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Christofferson v. N.D. Dept. of Health 2007 ND 199
Docket No.: 20070129
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A tire collection that may benefit agricultural activities may not be a "beneficial use" because of "accumulations in total, on human and animal health, the environment, and on local and state government, which may be ultimately financially responsible to dispose of the tires."

Matter of Midgett 2007 ND 198
Docket No.: 20070109
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The Sixth Amendment does not apply to a civil commitment proceeding for a sexually dangerous individual.
In a civil commitment proceeding for a sexually dangerous individual, evidence of prior sexually predatory conduct or criminal conduct, including a record of the juvenile court, is admissible.

State v. Schmeets 2007 ND 197
Docket No.: 20060375
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The threshold question for determining whether a person tampered with constitutes a "witness" is whether the individual charged with tampering with that person had a reasonably founded belief that the person tampered with would testify.
The person tampered with in a witness tampering case need not be included on a witness list filed in a case in order for an individual to be convicted of tampering with that witness.

Christian v. Christian 2007 ND 196
Docket No.: 20070053
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Permanent spousal support is appropriate when the economically disadvantaged spouse cannot be equitably rehabilitated to make up for the opportunities and development she lost during the course of the marriage.
When the parties to a divorce have reached an agreement on all matters pertaining to division of their property, there is no reason for the district court to hear evidence of the value of marital property.
In deciding whether to award attorney fees in a divorce action, the district court must balance one party's needs against the other party's ability to pay.
Submission of an affidavit to support an award of attorney fees is not necessary when the award is supported by testimony and other documentary evidence received in an evidentiary hearing.
Evidence that is discoverable before trial does not qualify as newly discovered evidence.
A property settlement agreement that is unconscionable may be set aside.

State v. Haugen 2007 ND 195
Docket No.: 20070141
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle is a strict liability offense, punishable without regard to intent, knowledge, willfulness, or negligence.
An appellant assumes the consequences and risks for failure to file a complete transcript, and an issue will not be reviewed if the record on appeal does not allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error.

Evenson v. Evenson 2007 ND 194
Docket No.: 20060148
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Marital property valuations within the range of evidence presented to the district court are not clearly erroneous.
In deciding whether to award attorney fees in a divorce proceeding, the district court should consider the property owned by each party, their relative incomes, whether property is liquid or fixed assets, and whether the actions of either party have increased the time spent on the case.
Evidence must have been in existence at the time of trial to constitute newly discovered evidence.
A new trial normally will not be granted to enable the movant to present her case under a different theory than she adopted at trial.

State v. Sabo 2007 ND 193
Docket No.: 20070090
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government's closing rebuttal argument is limited to addressing only the issues the defendant raised in his closing argument.

State v. Hurt 2007 ND 192
Docket No.: 20070081
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: In a review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress, the district court's findings of fact are given deference, and conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance.
One exception to the warrant requirement is voluntary consent by the individual whose property is searched, or by a third party who possesses common authority over the premises.
The Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to provide co-occupants opportunity to assert their Fourth Amendment rights at the door; rather, the protections provide that a physically present co-occupant, who expressly refuses to permit the search despite the consent of his fellow occupant, renders the warrantless search unreasonable as to him.
The co-occupant who is not present at the door and does not refuse the search at the time his fellow occupant provides consent "loses out" on his opportunity to exclude evidence gathered in a common-area, co-occupant consent search.

Witzke v. Gonzales 2007 ND 191
Docket No.: 20070162
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author:

Highlight: Summary judgment for claims of private nuisance and defamation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).