Opinions

Victor v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al. (Consolidated w/20050400) 2006 ND 68
Docket No.: 20050384
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Workforce Safety and Insurance has discretion in determining what rehabilitative services are reasonably necessary and a reasoning mind reasonably could have decided that a $10,000 animal hoist was not a reasonably necessary rehabilitative service for a worker employed at a dog grooming business.

Manning v. Manning 2006 ND 67
Docket No.: 20050065
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Nesvig v. Nesvig (cross-ref. w/20030041) 2006 ND 66
Docket No.: 20050125
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: In deciding whether to compel testimony of an unretained expert, the court should consider: whether the expert is being called to testify about facts of the case or to give opinion testimony; the difference between testifying to a previously formed or expressed opinion and forming a new one; whether the witness is a unique expert; the likelihood a comparable witness will willingly testify; and the degree the witness is oppressed by having to continually testify.
The district court does not abuse its discretion by failing to sequester an expert witness from observing trial testimony where the expert's presence is essential to presentation of the party's cause and no prejudice results.

Rothberg v. Rothberg 2006 ND 65
Docket No.: 20050198
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: An order denying a motion to modify child support or spousal support that is intended to be the final order of the court is appealable.
Conclusory, general findings of fact do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and the trial court must specifically state the subordinate facts upon which its ultimate factual conclusions rest.
In deciding whether to award attorney fees in a divorce proceeding, the court must consider the parties' financial needs and ability to pay.

Kramer v. Kramer 2006 ND 64
Docket No.: 20050222
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A district court should ordinarily not order a distribution of marital property that is inconsistent with the parties' contract, but a court may set aside a property settlement agreement if the agreement is executed under mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, or if the agreement is unconscionable.

State v. Stavig 2006 ND 63
Docket No.: 20050278
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Probation and restitution in a felony case may be extended for only one additional period of probation, not to exceed five years.
Ona revocation of probation appeal: (1) the Court reviews under a clearly erroneous standard whether the defendant violated his or her probation; and (2) the Court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard whether the district court's revoking the defendant's probation.

State v. Moran 2006 ND 62
Docket No.: 20050244
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Four factors must be weighted to decide whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the accused's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the accused.
The State must actively try to serve a warrant, or it risks being negligent for not diligently pursuing the accused.
When the State diligently pursues the defendant, the defendant must prove actual prejudice; when the State intentionally delays prosecution because of a bad-faith motive, prejudice is presumed; and when the State has been negligent by not diligently pursuing the defendant, the weight of the other factors and the length of the delay controls whether prejudice must be actual or may be presumed.
The State does not err in its closing argument when it does not refer to its burden of proof so long as it does not imply a lesser burden of proof.

Parizek v. State (Cons. w/20050261 & 20050262) 2006 ND 61
Docket No.: 20050260
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Before the district court may summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, the State's response to the application must be sufficient to put the applicant on his proof, shifting the burden to require the applicant to produce competent evidence to support his claims prior to the evidentiary hearing.
To justify summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief, the district court must find the applicant's claims invalid on their face.

Brown v. State Board of Higher Education 2006 ND 60
Docket No.: 20050365
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A university student with a grievance against the university is required to exhaust the university's internal procedures, provided by the university's policies, for handling such grievances prior to bringing a claim in court.

Thomas, et al. v. Stone 2006 ND 59
Docket No.: 20050269
Filing Date: 3/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An insured's authority to designate beneficiaries in a life insurance policy may be limited by an agreement or judgment.