Opinions

Grandbois and Grandbois, Inc., et al. v. City of Watford City, et al. 2004 ND 162
Docket No.: 20030250
Filing Date: 8/5/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Summary judgment is proper against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
The plaintiff has the burden of showing actual damage and establishing that the actual damage was proximately caused by the alleged fraudulent or deceitful act.

Grand Forks Co. v. Tollefson, et al. 2004 ND 161
Docket No.: 20030370
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: An employee's benefit year, for purposes of calculating a former employer's liability for unemployment benefits, begins when the employee first files a request for determination of insured status, and a subsequent benefit year cannot be established until the expiration of the current benefit year.
In an administrative proceeding, a party's failure to request that a witness be subpoenaed waives the right to have the witness present and available for cross-examination.

State v. Hilgers 2004 ND 160
Docket No.: 20030169
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A trial court is not obligated to issue every subpoena requested by a defendant.
An appellant is required to file a transcript on appeal and assumes the consequences of a failure to do so. An appellate court will decline to review an issue over which it is unable to provide meaningful review.

Interest of J.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2004 ND 159
Docket No.: 20040183
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: In an appeal from a continuing treatment order, our review is limited to a review of the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the lower court.
District court's order based upon finding that less restrictive alternative treatment was not appropriate is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Ficek, et al. v. Morken, et al. 2004 ND 158
Docket No.: 20030295
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The public duty doctrine, that there is no enforceable duty in tort when a statute or common law imposes upon a public entity a duty to the public at large rather than to a particular class of individuals, is incompatible with North Dakota law.

State v. Mitzel 2004 ND 157
Docket No.: 20030359
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The existence of consent and whether it is voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances.
Consent cannot reasonably be implied from silence and failure to object.
Consent should not be lightly inferred, must be proven by clear and positive testimony, and must be unequivocal.
The government has the burden to prove that consent was voluntarily given.
The mere fact that a person has been arrested in violation of his constitutional rights casts grave doubt upon the voluntariness of a subsequent consent.
Miranda warnings are a factor to consider under the voluntariness test, but a Miranda warning cannot support voluntariness of consent when it is given after the consent.

Gonzalez v. Tounjian, et al. (Cross-reference w/20020263) 2004 ND 156
Docket No.: 20040015
Filing Date: 8/4/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: When a judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal, post-judgment interest on the affirmed portion runs from the date of the original judgment.

Miller v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al. 2004 ND 155
Docket No.: 20040064
Filing Date: 7/29/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Maring, Mary

Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, et al. 2004 ND 154
Docket No.: 20030197
Filing Date: 7/26/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Debtor/Creditor
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A contract must be interpreted to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, and when the contract has been reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible.
An agricultural operating loan evidenced by a promissory note specifying that all principal and interest shall be due on a date certain shortly after completion of that crop year is not a revolving charge agreement.
To establish an antitrust violation based upon illegal tying, it must be shown that the seller possesses significant market power in the tying market.

Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, et al. 2004 ND 153
Docket No.: 20030353
Filing Date: 7/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Collateral estoppel generally bars new litigation, based on a different claim, of issues that were or must have been determined in the prior suit.
Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue if: (1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one presented; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom the plea is asserted had a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.
A court of this state that has made a child custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination.
No civil action lies for perjury in another proceeding.
Res judicata means that a valid, existing final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive, with regard to the issues raised, or those that could have been raised, and determined as to the parties and their privies in all other actions.
A trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance to amend a complaint will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion.
A trial court's denial of a motion for a continuance to conduct additional discovery will not be reversed unless the trial court abused its discretion.