Opinions

Ehrhardt v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation 2007 ND 10
Docket No.: 20060255
Filing Date: 2/1/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Suspension of driver's license summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

ND State Board of Medical Examiners v. Hsu 2007 ND 9
Docket No.: 20060134
Filing Date: 1/23/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The preponderance of evidence standard of proof for administrative disciplinary proceedings against a physician does not violate due process or equal protection.
A party to an administrative proceeding is not denied due process because the agency performs all three functions of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication.
The determination of the appropriate sanction to be imposed by the Board of Medical Examiners in a disciplinary proceeding is a matter of discretion.
A petitioner for writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to the act sought to be compelled and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Mandamus may not be issued to compel an official's discretionary acts.

Disciplinary Board v. Buresh 2007 ND 8
Docket No.: 20060230
Filing Date: 1/16/2007
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client; when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; and when a lawyer engages in serious conduct a necessary element of which includes misrepresentation, extortion, misappropriation, or theft.
Under the North Dakota Standards Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, disbarment is allowed for one instance of stealing from a client or lying to a client for the lawyer's benefit.
A lawyer's conversion of a client's funds to his own use is impossible to condone and is one of the least excusable acts of misconduct for which a lawyer can be disciplined.
A lawyer may be disciplined for committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. A criminal conviction is not a condition precedent to a discipline proceeding when the facts themselves warrant discipline.

State v. Moore 2007 ND 7
Docket No.: 20060131
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: An appellate court will not reverse a finding of good cause for a grant of additional time unless the trial court abused its discretion. Factors considered when deciding whether good cause exists to grant additional time are the length of delay, the reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.
Section 29-33-03, N.D.C.C., provides an exception to the requirement that an order be written and signed before it is final. It allows the trial court to rule on a request for additional time in open court.

State v. Stensaker (consolidated w/20050454) 2007 ND 6
Docket No.: 20050453
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: On appeal, jury instructions are fully reviewable.
Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole and must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law even though part of the instructions when standing alone may be insufficient or misleading.
The intentional gathering and preparation of ingredients, whose purchase, possession, or transportation is regulated by state law, with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine provides sufficient evidence for criminal attempt to manufacture methamphetamine.

Donlin v. Donlin 2007 ND 5
Docket No.: 20060128
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Property division need not be equal to be equitable, but a substantial disparity must be explained. A long-term marriage supports an equal distribution of property.
Property division and spousal support are interrelated and intertwined and often must be considered together. In making a spousal support determination, the district court must consider the relevant factors under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.

State v. Goebel 2007 ND 4
Docket No.: 20060147
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Prosecutions for the sexual abuse of child victims are subject to a particular statute of limitations and tolling provision contained in the North Dakota Century Code.
If the victim is under the age of fifteen at the time of the sexual abuse, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim reaches the age of fifteen, which extends the initial seven-year limitation period until the victim reaches the age of twenty-two.
If the victim does not report the sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities within the seven-year period, but reports the offense sometime later, the limitation period runs for three years from the date the offense is reported.

Lucier v. Lucier 2007 ND 3
Docket No.: 20060060
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A spousal support obligation may be modified if the district court finds there is a material change in circumstances after examining the reasons for the changes in income and the extent to which the changes were contemplated.
A contemplated change in circumstances is not a change that justifies modifying spousal support.
When modifying a spousal support award, the district court must adequately explain its rationale in determining the new support amount.

State v. Zahn (CONSOLIDATED W/20060046 & 20060047) 2007 ND 2
Docket No.: 20060045
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A party charged with violating a protection order cannot challenge the validity of the protection order without first presenting the argument to the court issuing the order.
A court order must be obeyed until stayed, modified, or reversed by orderly review.
To convict a defendant of violating a protection order, the State need only prove it served a protection order on the defendant and the defendant's conduct violated the order.

Interest of J.H. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2007 ND 1
Docket No.: 20060373
Filing Date: 1/11/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author:

Highlight: Mental health orders summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).