Opinions

May v. Sprynczynatyk 2005 ND 76
Docket No.: 20040232
Filing Date: 4/11/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Failure of the Department of Transportation to file the transcript of the administrative hearing within twenty days, as required by N.D.C.C. 39-20-06, does not automatically mandate summary reversal of the decision suspending a driver's license.
To establish systemic disregard of the law by an administrative agency sufficient to warrant reversal of a decision in the agency's favor, a party must demonstrate some persistent pattern of improper agency conduct.
A party must make a specific objection to evidence at the time it is offered for admission into evidence to give the opposing party an opportunity to argue the objection and to give the trial court an opportunity to fully understand the objection and appropriately rule on it.

State of ND v. NDSU, et al. 2005 ND 75
Docket No.: 20040228
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: For purposes of an insurance policy exclusion for surface water damage, surface water does not lose its character as surface water by being diverted underground through man-made structures.
The efficient proximate cause doctrine applies only where two or more independent forces operate to cause the loss.
The efficient proximate cause doctrine does not apply to a loss caused by a discernable cause even though the insured attempts to characterize the cause in various ways to create the appearance of multiple causes.
A covered peril that is merely a concurrent cause is insufficient to allow coverage under the efficient proximate cause doctrine.

Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern 2005 ND 74
Docket No.: 20040267
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 does not preempt state jurisdiction over railroad grade crossings.

Litoff v. Pinter 2005 ND 73
Docket No.: 20040330
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order denying a motion for reinstatement of unsupervised visitation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Paulson v. Paulson 2005 ND 72
Docket No.: 20040242
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A trial court cannot delegate to anyone the power to decide questions of child custody or related issues.
When a party agrees to the court's appointing one person to serve as both custody investigator and guardian ad litem, that party waives the right to object that the court's appointee is in violation of the rules of court when she acts as the child's advocate and also testifies at the custody proceedings.
A trial court's denial of a motion for continuance will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

H-T Enterprises v. Antelope Creek Bison Ranch 2005 ND 71
Docket No.: 20040194
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The purpose of the no-counterclaim provision in the eviction statute is to get a speedy determination of possession.
A defendant in an eviction action may show the character of the parties' possessory rights, evidence of a strained relationship having a bearing on whether a material breach has occurred, and affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

Harter v. ND Dept. of Transportation 2005 ND 70
Docket No.: 20040281
Filing Date: 4/6/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Section 39-20-04.1(1)(a), N.D.C.C., provides penalties for persons under the age of 21 who drive with a blood alcohol concentration of at least .02 percent by weight.
The rule of lenity, which requires ambiguities in the law to be interpreted in favor of a criminal defendant, does not apply in civil cases.

Guardianship/Conservatorship of Van Sickle (Consolidated w/20040224) 2005 ND 69
Docket No.: 20040195
Filing Date: 4/4/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Guardian/Conservator
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The Supreme Court will determine a moot issue if the matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review.
A person has no right to demand to appear in a court proceeding and testify by telephone.
A guardian may place a ward in a locked and secured unit of a basic care facility without first obtaining a court order.
The party proposing the transfer of a ward to a more restrictive living arrangement has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed placement is the least restrictive alternative available.
A district court has discretion over the order in which evidence is presented.
The best interest of a ward is served by appointing a non-family member as guardian when family members are unable to get along with each other.
A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial when the alleged error is raised for the first time in the motion for new trial and the alleged error could have been raised during the actual trial.

Strand, et al. v. U.S. Bank National Association ND, et al. 2005 ND 68
Docket No.: 20040068
Filing Date: 3/31/2005
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A party alleging that a contractual provision is unconscionable must demonstrate some quantum of both procedural and substantive unconscionability, and courts are to balance the various factors, viewed in totality, to determine whether the contractual provision is so one-sided as to be unconscionable.
Procedural unconscionability is established when one party is in such a superior bargaining position that it totally dictates all terms of the contract, a preprinted standard form contract is used, there is no possible negotiation of terms, and the only option presented to the other party is to "take it or leave it."
The right to bring a class action is procedural, and a class action is not a substantive remedy.
Contractual provisions which limit or exclude remedies otherwise available at law and leave a party without an effective remedy are substantively unconscionable.

Larson v. Larson 2005 ND 67
Docket No.: 20040248
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: In construing a statute, courts are to ascertain the legislature's intent, which initially must be sought from the statutory language itself, giving it its plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning.
As amended, N.D. law does not allow a court to award post-minority child support for college expenses.