Opinions

State v. $3719 U.S. Currency 2007 ND 188
Docket No.: 20070149
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order granting forfeiture of $3,719 is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

State v. Gandesbery 2007 ND 187
Docket No.: 20070197
Filing Date: 12/13/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Interest of B.D.K. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2007 ND 186
Docket No.: 20070320
Filing Date: 12/5/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A court is not required to order a less restrictive treatment than hospitalization when a mentally ill person requiring treatment under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-07 makes the bare assertion that he will hire his own psychiatrist, because such assertion does not constitute a viable alternative to hospitalization.

Sundby v. Disciplinary Board 2007 ND 185
Docket No.: 20070332
Filing Date: 12/3/2007
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author:

Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered.

Estate of Egeland (Cross-ref. w/ 20060319) 2007 ND 184
Docket No.: 20070075
Filing Date: 11/27/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A court appropriately considers the benefit received by joint obligors in determining the right to contribution between them under N.D.C.C. 9-01-08.
On appeal due regard is givien to the trial court's opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and the trial court's choice between two permissible views of the evidence is not clearly erroneous.

Tarnavsky v. Tarnavsky, et al. 2007 ND 183
Docket No.: 20070021
Filing Date: 11/26/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order denying "motion to expunge" under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(iii) and (iv) summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

Estate of Truax 2007 ND 182
Docket No.: 20070121
Filing Date: 11/19/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgment denying a motion to amend a judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Hendricks Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Birchwood Prop. Ltd. Partnership, et al. 2007 ND 181
Docket No.: 20070028
Filing Date: 11/19/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The interpretation of an agency agreement is governed by laws for construing contracts except to the extent the agent's fiduciary relationship with the principal requires a special rule, or the parties agree otherwise.
A district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law must be stated with sufficient specificity to provide reviewing courts with a clear understanding of the district court's decision, and a district court's findings of fact are adequate if the reviewing court is able to understand the factual basis for the district court's decision.
A liquidated damage clause is valid if the damages stemming from a breach are impractical or extremely difficult to estimate when the contract was entered, the parties reasonably endeavored to fix their damages, and the amount stipulated bears a reasonable relation to the probable damages and is not disproportionate to any damages reasonably anticipated.
Face-to-face negotiations are not necessary to uphold a liquidated damage clause.

Intercept Corp. v. Calima Financial LLC, et al. 2007 ND 180
Docket No.: 20060307
Filing Date: 11/14/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The corporate veil of a limited liability company may be pierced if the same conditions and circumstances under which the corporate veil of a corporation may be pierced under North Dakota law are present.
A lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense is waived if it is neither made by motion nor included in a responsive pleading.

Axtmann, et al. v. Chillemi, et al. 2007 ND 179
Docket No.: 20070006
Filing Date: 11/14/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Corporations
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The officers and directors of a corporation generally are not liable for the ordinary debts of the corporation, but a corporation's corporate veil may be disregarded when the corporation has insufficient capitalization for purposes of the corporate undertaking.
A district court's decision to pierce a corporate veil and impose personal liability on an officer or director is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.