Opinions

Schwan v. Folden 2006 ND 28
Docket No.: 20050185
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: If a plaintiff does not move for default judgment after the default has occurred or within a reasonable time after the default, and the answer is subsequently filed, the plaintiff waives its right to default judgment for a defendant's failure to appear.
The strong preference of the courts is to decide cases on their merits rather than by default judgment.
A party who proceeds to trial rather than pursuing a default judgment waives its right to default judgment.
Only items in the record may be included in the appendix, and the Supreme Court may take appropriate action against any person failing comply with this rule.

Lentz v. Spryncznatyk 2006 ND 27
Docket No.: 20050234
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A statute is employed retroactively when it is applied to a cause of action that arose prior to the effective date of the statute.
A statute is not retroactively applied merely because prior convictions are used that occurred before the effective date of a statute, as long as the triggering offense occurred after the effective date of the statute.

Dunn v. State 2006 ND 26
Docket No.: 20050336
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A motion for summary dismissal under the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act is akin to a motion for summary judgment.
Thirty days' response time is allowed following motions for summary dismissal under the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act.
Summary dismissal is appropriate if the petitioner in a post-conviction relief action fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

State v. Nikle 2006 ND 25
Docket No.: 20050172
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Great weight is given to a potential juror's claim that he or she will maintain impartiality.
No legal rule is violated if a jury panel is not rejected after one venireperson makes a comment which, though arguably inappropriate, does not affect the fairness or impartiality of any member of the venire.
Assistance of counsel is effective if, despite counsel's "errors," the results of the proceedings would remain unchanged.

Wheeler v. Gardner 2006 ND 24
Docket No.: 20050166
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: An inmate's responsibility for costs of a medical visit is not limited to a maximum of $10, but rather an inmate is responsible for the actual health care costs plus an additional $10 fee for each medical visit requested by the inmate.
An "after hours" fee billed by a dental office is a health care cost for which an inmate is liable.

Hilgers v. Hilgers (Cross-ref w/20010208 & 20030252) 2006 ND 23
Docket No.: 20050146
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Interest of B.V. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2006 ND 22
Docket No.: 20050300
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: An order committing a sexually dangerous individual will be affirmed unless it is induced by an erroneous view of the law or it is not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
In a commitment proceeding, an indigent respondent entitled to appointment of an independent examiner does not have the right to choose a specific examiner.
When the commitment proceeding is not held within the statutorily required sixty days, the case will not be dismissed if the delay was caused by the respondent's actions.
A competent party in a civil commitment proceeding who wishes to represent himself cannot be coerced into accepting appointed counsel where there is a clear request for self-representation.

State v. Feist 2006 ND 21
Docket No.: 20050152
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: When the nature of a plea agreement is ambiguous, a trial court should clarify the existence of a plea agreement on the record.
The court must allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty whenever the defendant proves withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.
The failure of a district court to substantially comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c) in conjunction with ambiguity on the record as to what sort of plea negotiations existed between the parties creates a manifest injustice requiring the withdrawal of a guilty plea.

Perez v. Nichols 2006 ND 20
Docket No.: 20050228
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: To succeed in a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge that duty, and the plaintiff has suffered an injury that was proximately caused by the defendant's negligence.
The driver of an automobile has a duty to keep a proper lookout, and failure to discharge that duty is negligence.
In a negligence claim, when the evidence permits a reasonable fact-finder to reach only one reasonable conclusion, negligence becomes a question of law and is appropriate for summary judgment.

Interest of M.B., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2006 ND 19
Docket No.: 20050206
Filing Date: 1/31/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: To terminate parental rights, the petitioner must provide specific facts that will be relied on to terminate the parent's rights so the parent has notice and is able to meaningfully prepare a defense.
To terminate parental rights, the petitioner must prove three elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is a deprived child, (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied, and (3) that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.
To prove deprivation is likely to continue or will not be remedied, the petitioner cannot rely on past deprivation alone, but must provide prognostic evidence, demonstrating the deprivation will continue.