Opinions

Makeeff v. City of Bismarck 2005 ND 60
Docket No.: 20040272
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A landowner is not immune from liability for an accident that occurs on the landowner's premises just because the accident was caused by a natural accumulation of snow and ice.
Landowners or occupiers have a duty to lawful entrants to reasonably maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition, in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to another, the seriousness of an injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
Landowners, however, are not insurers of their premises, nor must they endure unreasonable burdens to maintain it.

State v. Nelson 2005 ND 59
Docket No.: 20040284
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: If an application for a search warrant contains statements intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, the false material must be set aside, and if the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.
To establish probable cause for a search, there must be a nexus between the place to be searched and the contraband sought.
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is taking place which may warrant further investigation does not rise to a level of probable cause to search.

Kastrow v. State 2005 ND 58
Docket No.: 20040318
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Denial of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Wheeler v. Jahnke, et al. (Consol. w/20040362) (Cross-ref. w/20040341-20040343) 2005 ND 57
Docket No.: 20040361
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Certiorari
Author:

Highlight: A district court order affirming a magistrate's finding of probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial on charges of gross sexual imposition and encouraging the deprivation of a minor is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

Jacob, et al. v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., et al. 2005 ND 56
Docket No.: 20040197
Filing Date: 3/8/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Employer/Employee Dispute
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Age alone, without other evidence, is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination case.
Section 34-01-20, N.D.C.C., prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for reporting illegalities and requires a report to be made for the purpose of blowing the whistle to expose an illegality.
Section 14-02.4-03, N.D.C.C., does not prohibit a retaliatory discharge for participating in an internal employee investigation.

Simpson, et al. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., et al. 2005 ND 55
Docket No.: 20040133
Filing Date: 3/8/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: For purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel, parties and their privies are barred by a former judgment.
Res judicata and collateral estoppel apply when subsequent claims are based on the same facts and events but different legal theories are pled.
A district court's determination regarding a request for sanctions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 will not be reversed unless the court abused its discretion.
Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2).

Interest of R.F. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2005 ND 54
Docket No.: 20050053
Filing Date: 3/4/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: An individual found to be a person requiring mental-health treatment has the right to the least restrictive conditions necessary to achieve the purposes of treatment.
Orders for in-patient hospitalization and treatment are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. A district court's finding that alternative treatment is inadequate or that hospitalization is the least restrictive alternative will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.
An order for in-patient hospitalization is not clearly erroneous where a doctor testifies that a mentally ill individual's dementia, which has yet to be fully diagnosed or treated, likely triggered a prescription-drug overdose, and asserts that the hospital's structure and supervision are temporarily needed to help avoid future self-medication accidents.

Frieze v. Frieze 2005 ND 53
Docket No.: 20040103
Filing Date: 3/4/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Section 14-09-06.6(5), N.D.C.C., limits the grounds upon which a court may grant a motion to change custody which is brought within two years following entry of the order establishing custody, and includes the persistent and willful denial of interference with visitation or a present environment which may endanger or impair the child's physical or emotional health or development.
When a stepparent's career takes him or her out of state to secure a job, allowing the spouse and stepchildren to relocate to that place is crucially important to maintaining family continuity and stability.
When the relevant factors weigh in favor of the custodial parent's request to relocate the children, the trial court's denial of the motion constitutes reversible error.

Thomas v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al. 2005 ND 52
Docket No.: 20040311
Filing Date: 3/4/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A willful failure to give a maximum consistent effort in a functional capacity assessment can constitute noncompliance with vocational rehabilitation.
Workforce Safety and Insurance must adequately explain the reasons for disregarding medical evidence favorable to a claimant.

Larsen v. ND Dept. of Transportation 2005 ND 51
Docket No.: 20040158
Filing Date: 3/4/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: In interpreting a statute, a court may not disregard the letter of the statute under the pretext of pursuing its spirit, and may not add words to the statute.