Opinions

Vogel v. Workforce Safety and Insurance, et al. 2005 ND 43
Docket No.: 20040173
Filing Date: 2/23/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: In appeals from administrative agency decisions, challenged findings of fact are affirmed when supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal from an administrative decision.
A reviewing court defers to a hearing officer's unique opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses.

State v. Ramsey 2005 ND 42
Docket No.: 20040035
Filing Date: 2/22/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A correct result will not be set aside merely because the trial court assigned an incorrect reason, if the result is the same under the correct law and reasoning.
When a defendant argues that the testimony of a witness is a recent fabrication or the result of improper influence or motive, prior statements of the witness may be admitted to rebut the charge if the witness is available for cross-examination and the prior statement is consistent with the testimony.
Subsequent crimes, wrongs, or acts are considered under the same evidentiary analysis as other or prior acts.
Doubts about the admissibility of evidence, such as doubts about the existence of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading, undue delay, or waste of time, should be resolved in favor of admitting the evidence, taking necessary precautions by way of contemporaneous instructions to the jury followed by additional admonition in the charge.
A jury is presumed to follow instructions given by the trial court.
The purpose of an appeal is to review the actions of the trial court, not to hear issues raised for the first time on appeal.

Ingebretson v. Ingebretson 2005 ND 41
Docket No.: 20040156
Filing Date: 2/22/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: An award of permanent spousal support to a party who requested support for ten years must be supported by sufficient findings and based on the record.
The district court must consider all evidence, including a party's testimony, when determining that party's need for the purpose of awarding spousal support.
A district court is not limited by a party's testimony when awarding spousal support as long as justification is provided for an award that exceeds the party's request.

Lochthowe v. C.F. Peterson Estate 2005 ND 40
Docket No.: 20040159
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A third party who derives gain from an agreement between others has not necessarily been unjustly enriched, unless the third party has participated somehow in the transaction through which the benefit is obtained.
The clearly erroneous standard applies to the review of a district court's findings on a claim of unlawful interference with a business relationship.

Interest of D.P.O. (Cross-ref. w/20030002 & 20030020) 2005 ND 39
Docket No.: 20040176
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: On appeal, an issue will not be decided if it has become moot because events have occurred which make it impossible for the Court to issue relief or the passage of time has made the issue moot.
The decision to award grandparents visitation separate from the mother's is not clearly erroneous when it is in the best interest of the child and is based on consideration of the evidence in the record.

Rhodes v. Rhodes 2005 ND 38
Docket No.: 20040234
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A prenuptial agreement is a contract, and its interpretation is primarily a question of law for the court to decide.

Fast v. Mayer 2005 ND 37
Docket No.: 20040200
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: When a trial court considers restrictions on a noncustodial parent's visitation rights, the standard of proof required is a preponderance of the evidence.
A custodial parent seeking to prevent the noncustodial parent from having unsupervised visitation must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that physical or emotional harm will likely result from allowing the noncustodial parent unsupervised visitation.

Mann, et al. v. ND Tax Commissioner, et al. 2005 ND 36
Docket No.: 20040174
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Tax Realted
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A final order or judgment is necessary for appealability in an injunction action.
An appeal from an order denying reconsideration does not present the Supreme Court with the merits of the original order requested to be reconsidered, but presents for review only whether the district court abused its discretion in deciding the movant either did or did not offer sufficient grounds to reconsider the previous decision.
The Supreme Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts rarely to rectify errors or to prevent injustice when no adequate alternative remedies exist.

Brandt, et al. v. Somerville, et al. 2005 ND 35
Docket No.: 20040112
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Corporations
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1 governs claims for breaches of fiduciary duties by those in control of a close corporation, and a trial court's findings about claims for breaches of fiduciary duties are reviewed under the clearly erroneous rule.
An agreement to restrict the transfer of stock of a close corporation will be upheld unless the price or terms of the agreement are unreasonable under all the circumstances.
In a shareholder action, a trial court has discretion to determine an appropriate remedy for violations of N.D.C.C. ch. 10-19.1 by those in control of a close corporation.

Tibert, et al. v. Slominski, et al. 2005 ND 34
Docket No.: 20040198
Filing Date: 2/16/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The agricultural nuisance shield of N.D.C.C. 42-04-02 extends to all corporations and limited liability companies that meet the requirements of N.D.C.C. 42-04-01 regardless of whether they meet the more limited requirements of the corporate farming law.
A claim for trespass cannot stand unless the evidence demonstrates an actual interference with the property of another.