Opinions

State v. Krull 2005 ND 63
Docket No.: 20040239
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: If a defendant does not object at trial to the introduction of a child's hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse, our inquiry is limited to whether the admission into evidence constitutes obvious error affecting substantial rights.
A trial court abuses its discretion and commits plain error if, under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), it admits a child's hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse without first making explicit findings regarding the reliability and trustworthiness of the statements. Merely quoting the terms of the hearsay rule and ordering the statements admitted is inadequate.
Even if a trial court commits plain error, for reversal, the error must have affected the defendant's substantial rights by altering the trial's outcome.
A defendant's inculpatory words are substantial evidence on which a rational jury can convict, particularly when such words are unrefuted.

Doll v. ND Department of Transportation 2005 ND 62
Docket No.: 20040188
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Guidelines for use of a standard solution are not part of the approved method for conducting an Intoxilyzer test unless the State Toxicologist expressly includes them in the approved method filed with the clerk of district court.

City of Horace v. City of Fargo 2005 ND 61
Docket No.: 20040219
Filing Date: 3/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Annexation statutes are construed liberally to encourage the natural and well-ordered development of municipalities.
A resolution and annexation plat, with a subsequent notation to a judgment that invalidated part of the annexation and was consistent with the parties' mediation agreement, constituted an accurate map for the part of the annexation that had not been invalidated.

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.