Opinions

Disciplinary Board v. Spencer 2025 ND 49
Docket No.: 20240339
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Suspension
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered.

Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al. 2025 ND 47
Docket No.: 20240083
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable.

When interpreting a contract, N.D.C.C. § 9-07-06 provides that the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable. If the granting clause describes the land as being an undivided interest in the land and a subsequent reservation which reserves a fractional part of the "land conveyed," or words of similar import, the reservation will be construed as reserving to the grantor the stated fractional interest of the fraction described in the granting clause.

A Duhig problem does not arise when a grantor, who owns an undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in a parcel of land via partnership, conveys the undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in the land's surface and a one-fourth (1/4) interest in land's minerals but reserves for himself the other one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals of the same land.

An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms. Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Stipulations as to the law are also invalid.

Language tying a royalty interest to another interest, such as a one-eighth royalty interest of an eight percent interest, creates a floating royalty.

State v. Williams 2025 ND 46
Docket No.: 20240203
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

When an issue is not raised at the trial court, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

A defendant's due process rights may be violated by a prosecutor's actions that constitute misconduct that has a prejudicial effect.

Hoistad v. NDDOT 2025 ND 45
Docket No.: 20240297
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The Department bears the burden of proving a chemical breath test result was fairly administered. If the Department fails to establish compliance with the approved method which goes to the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test, the Department must prove fair administration of the test through expert testimony.

When it is ready for the second breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 8000 displays, "Please Blow Until Tone Stops." The word "until" in this context signifies the point at which the driver should cease blowing into the instrument. Repeatedly blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stopped is contrary to the instructions displayed by the Intoxilyzer 8000 and, thus, the approved method.

Unless the impact of a deviation is within the knowledge of an ordinary person, it is the Department's burden to show through expert testimony whether a deviation from the approved method impacted the accuracy and reliability of the test. An ordinary person does not know what impact, if any, a subject's repeated blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stops has on the test results.

When the officer's deviations from the approved method involve the procedures for collecting and testing the sample, it raises the possibility that the deviation impacted the test result.

Even though the Department's action is not upheld by a court, a party is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) when the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision.

State v. Plentychief 2025 ND 44
Docket No.: 20240334
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Motion to reconsider order of dismissal denied.

Edwards v. State 2025 ND 43
Docket No.: 20240042
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An applicant for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must satisfy the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-90 (1984). Under Strickland's test, the applicant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Interest of S.F. 2025 ND 42
Docket No.: 20240337
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

State, et al. v. Carrier 2025 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240210
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Child support determinations involve questions of law, which are fully reviewable, findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and in some areas, matters of discretion subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

The party seeking to modify a child support obligation has the burden to provide appropriate and reliable information to support a modification of child support.

Issues are not adequately briefed when an appealing party fails to cite any supporting authority, and this Court will not consider them on appeal.

Kingstone v. Tedrow Kingstone 2025 ND 40
Docket No.: 20240143
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Whether an obligor can control the receipt of trust funds is not relevant to whether the funds are income for child support purposes. A court calculating a parent's child support obligation is concerned with whether the parent receives income from the trust.

The child support amount is presumed to be the correct amount, but can be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence if it is in the best interest of the children and one of the criteria in N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-09(2) is met. The court must make specific findings demonstrating why the guideline amount has been rebutted.

A court may order the obligor maintain a life insurance policy as reasonable security for child support payments.

A party moving to amend a judgment under Rule 59, N.D.R.Civ.P., bears a heavy burden of showing sufficient grounds for disturbing the final judgment.

State v. McDermott 2025 ND 39
Docket No.: 20240150
Filing Date: 2/13/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment with a firearm is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).