Opinions

Holbach v. Dixon 2007 ND 60
Docket No.: 20060275
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order must allege specific facts or threats that adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.
To comport with due process requirements in a disorderly conduct restraining order proceeding, a court can limit the petitioner's argument to the dates alleged and the facts contained in the petition.

State v. Georgeson 2007 ND 59
Docket No.: 20060211
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A conviction for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (3).

Olsson v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al. 2007 ND 58
Docket No.: 20060371
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming the decision of Workforce Safety and Insurance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Hieb v. Hieb 2007 ND 57
Docket No.: 20060240
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Divorce judgment dividing marital property and awarding spousal support, attorney fees, and costs is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Deacon's Development v. Lamb, et al. 2007 ND 56
Docket No.: 20060335
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order awarding costs and attorney fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Kessel v. Rutherford, et al. 2007 ND 55
Docket No.: 20060267
Filing Date: 5/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Personal injury judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

Gisvold v. Windbreak Inc. 2007 ND 54
Docket No.: 20060209
Filing Date: 4/19/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: In considering a motion for a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, a district court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the jury, or act as a thirteenth juror when the evidence is such that different persons would naturally and fairly come to different conclusions; rather, a district court may set aside a jury verdict when, in considering all the evidence, the court's judgment tells it the verdict is wrong because it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
A district court's decision on a motion for a new trial must concisely state the grounds on which the ruling is based.

Estate of Stave 2007 ND 53
Docket No.: 20060189
Filing Date: 4/10/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: In a proceeding to contest a will, four elements must be proven to establish undue influence: 1) a testator subject to undue influence; 2) the existence of the opportunity to exercise undue influence; 3) a disposition to exercise undue influence; and 4) a result that appears to be the effect of undue influence.
For the issue of undue influence to be submitted to a jury, the evidence must be sufficient with regard to each essential element of the claim and the evidence must also create more than just a mere suspicion of undue activity.

State v. Westmiller 2007 ND 52
Docket No.: 20060246
Filing Date: 4/10/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Although reasonable suspicion is the minimum quantum of evidence required for an investigatory traffic stop, a stop may be upheld on the basis of probable cause if that evidentiary standard has been satisfied.
Traffic violations, even if considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct and therefore provide officers with the basis for an investigatory stops.

Odden v. Rath 2007 ND 51
Docket No.: 20060170
Filing Date: 4/10/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: To obtain an extension of a protection order, the petitioner need not make a second showing of actual or imminent domestic violence. However, the petitioner must meet the threshold burden of showing actual or imminent domestic violence at some point prior to obtaining the extension.
Although the district court should not extend a protection order based solely on the history between the parties, it remains a relevant factor to consider when determining whether an extension is warranted.
A petitioner's fear alone, with no other supporting facts, is not enough to justify the extension of a protection order.