Opinions

Disciplinary Board v. Baird 2023 ND 188
Docket No.: 20230277
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.

Disciplinary Board v. Pilch 2023 ND 187
Docket No.: 20230268
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.

Disciplinary Board v. Pilch (consolidated w/ 20230266) 2023 ND 186
Docket No.: 20230265
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer disbarred.

Bd. of Trustees of The N.D. Public Employees' Retirement System v. N.D. (con't) 2023 ND 185
Docket No.: 20230158
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Injunction
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The supreme court invokes its original jurisdiction only in cases publici juris and those affecting the sovereignty of the state, its franchises and prerogatives, or the liberties of its people. The supreme court has exercised original jurisdiction in cases where the separation of coequal branches of government and their respective authority have been challenged.

Constitutional provisions are generally given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning. The overriding objective is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the people adopting the constitutional provision. The intent and purpose of constitutional provisions are to be determined, if possible, from the language itself.

Under North Dakota Constitution Article IV, § 13, “[n]o bill may embrace more than one subject, which must be expressed in its title.” When a bill embraces multiple subjects, all of which are expressed in its title, the whole bill is void due to the manifest impossibility of choosing which parts of the bill are valid and which are void. A court’s attempt to choose between the provisions would improperly inject it into the Legislature’s domain.

Interest of P.R.-K. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/20230282) 2023 ND 184
Docket No.: 20230281
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Jones v. Rath 2023 ND 183
Docket No.: 20230018
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Only an aggrieved party may appeal from an order or judgment.

For purposes of appellate review, an aggrieved party is someone whose interests are adversely affected by a court’s decision.

A temporary restraining order is not a final appealable order.

Individuals subject to a North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rule 58 vexatious litigant prefiling order may not raise issues on appeal concerning motions they did not have authority to file.

Interest of K.J. 2023 ND 182
Docket No.: 20230290
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Interest of K.J. 2023 ND 182
Docket No.: 20230290
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Isac v. State 2023 ND 181
Docket No.: 20230100
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: When a post-conviction relief applicant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must satisfy a two-prong test by showing (1) his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the applicant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Under the second prong, the district court is required to determine what the applicant would have done had he received competent advice—not what he would have done with the benefit of hindsight.

Witnesses must testify from personal knowledge. Witnesses may use notes to refresh their recollection, but they may not testify directly from the notes. A district court has broad discretion to control the use of evidence to refresh memory.

State v. Johnson 2023 ND 180
Docket No.: 20230083
Filing Date: 9/28/2023
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Terrorizing circumstances are threats of violence or dangerous acts made with an intent to induce fear. No precise words are necessary to convey a threat, and may be bluntly spoken or done by innuendo or suggestion. A threat often takes its meaning from the circumstances in which it is spoken, and words that are innocuous in themselves may take on a sinister meaning in the context in which they are recited.