Opinions

State v. Lampert 2025 ND 106
Docket No.: 20240271
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A jury's verdict was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). A district court's order was summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Weber v. Pennington 2025 ND 105
Docket No.: 20240323
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party seeking modification of primary residential responsibility two years after entry of the prior order establishing primary residential responsibility must establish a prima facie case justifying modification.

A party must show a material change in circumstances and either a general decline in the condition of the child or that the material change has adversely affected the child.

A party moving for primary residential responsibility is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if new facts have arisen since the prior order constituting a material change of circumstances, and if modification serves the best interests of the child.

Parents have a mutual responsibility to provide support for their children regardless of if the need arises during a parent's specified parenting time. A party must show a child has been adversely affected for there to be a material change in circumstances which warrants modification of the residential responsibility order.

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 104
Docket No.: 20240350
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court order extending placement of a child in the custody and control of the Grand Forks County Human Service Zone for a period of twelve months after finding the child is a child in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Leingang 2025 ND 103
Docket No.: 20240243
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Issues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate plain error which affected his substantial rights. However, if a party fails to argue obvious error, it is difficult for this Court to conclude this burden has been satisfied and this Court need not address it further.

Under Rule 1004(a), N.D.R.Ev., an original is not required, and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith.

Interest of D.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250111
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
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) and (4).

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250112
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
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) and (4).

Interest of M.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250113
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
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) and (4).

Severson v. Gupta, et al. 2025 ND 101
Docket No.: 20240292
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An appeal from a district court judgment granting a motion for summary judgment is reviewed under the de novo standard.

N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 allows a court to grant summary judgment for prompt and expeditious disposition of a controversy without a trial if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and if no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving disputed facts would not alter the result.

A district court did not err granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of medical malpractice because the plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit containing an expert opinion as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46.

Holm v. Holm 2025 ND 100
Docket No.: 20240246
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: This Court may summarily affirm judgments and orders when briefs do not meet the minimum requirements of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Under the applicable rules, if an electronically filed document is rejected, the tolling of the filing does not change the date of service, which is the date the document was transmitted.

The statutory default valuation date under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) is "sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date," not the date of trial.

When a court uses the parties' mutually agreed-to valuations, the court's finding of a different valuation date is harmless as to those assets and debts.

A district court places a value on martial property based on the evidence presented by the parties. When the court is "not given much information" regarding the value of a marital asset, the court's decision is limited by the parties' failure to provide information.

State v. Weltikol 2025 ND 99
Docket No.: 20240336
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).