Opinions

Kaiser v. State (Cross-reference w/20040135) 2006 ND 92
Docket No.: 20050319
Filing Date: 5/11/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Denial of application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

City of Minot v. Hellebust 2006 ND 91
Docket No.: 20050372
Filing Date: 5/11/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment after conviction by a jury of driving under the influence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

City of Lisbon v. Dahl 2006 ND 90
Docket No.: 20050388
Filing Date: 5/11/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, Southwest Judicial District 2006 ND 89
Docket No.: 20060098
Filing Date: 5/4/2006
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Judicial Vacancy in Judgeship No. 5, Southeast Judicial District 2006 ND 88
Docket No.: 20060035
Filing Date: 4/26/2006
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Southeast District judgeship retained at Ellendale.

Choice Financial Group v. Schellpfeffer, et al. (Cross-Ref w/20040204) 2006 ND 87
Docket No.: 20050273
Filing Date: 4/25/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Summary judgment is appropriate only after the non-moving party has had a reasonable opportunity for discovery to develop his position.
Failure to comply with the affidavit requirement of Rule 56(f), N.D.R.Civ.P., is not fatal to a request for additional discovery before a summary judgment motion is decided.
The party seeking additional discovery must identify with specificity what information is sought; how, if uncovered, it would preclude summary judgment; and why it has not previously been obtained.

Steen and Berg Co. v. Berg 2006 ND 86
Docket No.: 20050155
Filing Date: 4/25/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A primary objective of a nonclaim statute is the expeditious and orderly processing of decedents' estates, and if claims against a decedent's estate are not timely filed, the claims are barred as a matter of law.
Casting a claim in terms of title to property is insufficient to avoid the time limitations of the nonclaim statute if the gist of the claim sounds in tort or in contract.

Disciplinary Board v. Mertz 2006 ND 85
Docket No.: 20050360
Filing Date: 4/24/2006
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An attorney may attempt to compromise an infraction by proposing payment for the individual's injuries and agreeing not to file a potential suit against the individual in exchange for the individual dismissing the complaint.
When representing a client, an attorney may not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden a third party.

State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc. 2006 ND 84
Docket No.: 20050171
Filing Date: 4/21/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Preemption of state law is not favored, and the framework for analyzing a preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause begins with the basic assumption that Congress did not intend to displace state law.
A state's police power encompasses the duty to protect the privacy of its citizens, including the authority to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the home and the well-being and tranquility of the community.
The statutory language of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 clearly expresses Congress' intent that the Act was not meant to occupy the field within its subject matter.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act does not preempt a state law which prohibits telemarketing calls using automatic telephone dialing systems or artificial or prerecorded voice messages.

Sanderson, et al. v. Walsh Co., et al. 2006 ND 83
Docket No.: 20050303
Filing Date: 4/21/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A dismissal without prejudice is not appealable except where the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff's forum, e.g., a statute of limitations has run or where litigation is foreclosed in the state court.
Mailing, even by certified mail with return receipt and restricted delivery, does not constitute "delivering" for purposes of service of process on a county or the State under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) and 4(d)(2)(F).