Opinions

Riemers v. Grand Forks Herald, et al. 2004 ND 192
Docket No.: 20040069
Filing Date: 10/15/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Privilege is based upon the sound public policy that some communications are so socially important that the full and unrestricted exchange of information requires some latitude for mistake. A privileged communication does not enjoy absolute immunity, however.
To prevent abuse, the privilege is a qualified privilege. A qualified privilege is abused if statements are made with actual malice, without reasonable grounds for believing them to be true, and on a subject matter irrelevant to the common interest or duty.

Heckelsmiller v. State (Cross-Ref. w/20030179) 2004 ND 191
Docket No.: 20040111
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Ineffective assistance of counsel exists where trial counsel, after calling witnesses to the stand and discovering that they have not complied with a defense-requested sequestration order, makes no offer of proof as to the substance of these witnesses' critical testimony, thus denying defendant a meaningful appeal on the issue of whether these witnesses should have been allowed to testify.

Estate of Gross v. ND Dept. of Human Services 2004 ND 190
Docket No.: 20040071
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The monthly payments from a nonassignable annuity are a holder's interest in a contractual right to receive money payments and are an available asset under medicaid law.
There is a presumption that a holder's interest in a contractual right to receive money payments is saleable without working an undue hardship, and the presumption may be rebutted by evidence demonstrating the contractual right to receive money payments is not saleable without working an undue hardship.

Schmidt, et al. v. Wittinger 2004 ND 189
Docket No.: 20040051
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A trial court can order a partition of real property if a partition in kind cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners.
For the partition in kind of real property, great prejudice exists when the value of the share of each in case of a partition would be materially less than the share of the money equivalent that each could probably obtain from the whole.
A joint tenant must account to cotenants for receiving more than a proportionate share of the rents and profits.
A cotenant's failure to participate in the federal conservation reserve program is not a legal breach entitling the joint tenants to compensatory damages.

Riemers v. Omdahl, et al. 2004 ND 188
Docket No.: 20040099
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: In a legal malpractice action, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or with reasonable diligence should know, of the injury, its cause, and the defendant's possible negligence.
In a legal malpractice action, the continuous representation rule tolls the statute of limitations or defers accrual of the cause of action while the attorney continues to represent the client and the representation relates to the same transaction or subject matter as the allegedly negligent acts.

State v. Charette 2004 ND 187
Docket No.: 20040001
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Circumstantial evidence can, without more, be sufficient to warrant a conviction, assuming the circumstantial evidence is of such probative force to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The existence of conflicting evidence does not prohibit a jury from finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The decision to admit or exclude demonstrative evidence is subject to abuse-of-discretion review.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to allow defendant to try on clothing evidence found at a murder scene when defendant has gained weight since the date of the murder.
Rule 16, N.D.R.Crim.P., specifically addresses discovery of formal, recorded statements, and the State does not violate this rule if it fails to disclose a witness's informal, pre-trial statements.

Kouba v. State of North Dakota, et al. 2004 ND 186
Docket No.: 20040129
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Public policy demands that the State retain immunity for the exercise of discretionary acts in its official capacity, including legislative, judicial, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial functions.
The adjudicative acts performed by State officials in carrying out their duties are quasi-judicial in nature, and, therefore, immune from liability.
When a governmental agency systemically disregards the requirements of law, reversal may be required to ensure the government acts consistently and predictably in accordance with the law.

Kouba v. Hoeven, et al. 2004 ND 185
Docket No.: 20040138
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Mandamus
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A petitioner for a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a clear legal right to performance of the act sought to be compelled by the writ and must demonstrate there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

Baity v. Workforce Safety & Insurance, et al. 2004 ND 184
Docket No.: 20040096
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Supplementary disability benefits may be awarded only after Workforce Safety and Insurance has determined the claimant is incapable of rehabilitation of earnings capacity and is therefore permanently and totally disabled.
An agency's systemic disregard of the law may warrant reversing the agency decision without a showing of prejudice by the party relying on the improper conduct, but evidence of a single improper act is not sufficient to establish systemic disregard.

Interest of R.R. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2004 ND 183
Docket No.: 20040265
Filing Date: 10/12/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court is required only to determine whether treatment other than hospitalization is appropriate, not which unit in the hospital is appropriate.
A district court order requiring treatment at the State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).