Opinions

Baker v. Mayer 2004 ND 105
Docket No.: 20030324
Filing Date: 6/3/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A trial court's decision to grant a disorderly conduct restraining order will not be reversed unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion.
"Reasonable grounds" for a disorderly conduct restraining order is synonymous with "probable cause."
An alleged victim of disorderly conduct must show more than that the person's actions are unwanted; the alleged victim must show that the actions were intended to adversely affect the alleged victim's safety, privacy, or security.

Duma v. Keena, et al. 2004 ND 104
Docket No.: 20030302
Filing Date: 6/3/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Unopposed instructions become the law of the case.
A special verdict will be set aside only if it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence. Reconciliation of a verdict includes an examination of both the law of the case and the evidence in order to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable and thus consistent, or whether it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence.

State v. Markel 2004 ND 103
Docket No.: 20030299
Filing Date: 6/3/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for class B felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

Reishus v. Thompson 2004 ND 102
Docket No.: 20040007
Filing Date: 6/3/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A trial court judgment dismissing a negligence action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Disciplinary Board v. Peterson 2004 ND 101
Docket No.: 20040134
Filing Date: 5/28/2004
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered.

State v. Guthmiller 2004 ND 100
Docket No.: 20030298
Filing Date: 5/7/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of objective reasonableness.
A district court's decision on a suppression motion is affirmed unless, after resolving conflicting evidence in favor of affirmance, there is insufficient competent evidence to support the decision or the decision goes against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Disciplinary Board v. Balerud (CONFIDENTIAL) 2004 ND 99
Docket No.: 20040113
Filing Date: 5/7/2004
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer placed on disability inactive status until further order of the Court.

State v. McClary 2004 ND 98
Docket No.: 20030237
Filing Date: 5/5/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A jury verdict is inconsistent when, under the jury instructions and evidence, the verdict cannot be rationally reconciled.
A trial court may not question the jury about how it arrived at its verdict.

Tibert, et al. v. City of Minto, et al. (Cross ref. w/20030208) 2004 ND 97
Docket No.: 20030207
Filing Date: 5/5/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A district court's legal conclusion of mootness is reviewed de novo.
A common-law dedication must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The party attempting to establish the existence of the common-law dedication must show there was an intention to dedicate and a public acceptance of the dedication.
Whether a common-law dedication occurred is a question of fact which will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Haley v. Dennis, et al. 2004 ND 96
Docket No.: 20030284
Filing Date: 5/5/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A jury verdict that assesses a percentage of fault to the defendant after finding the defendant was not negligent is an inconsistent and irreconcilable verdict.
When the jury during deliberations requests additional instruction on a substantive point of law, the court must notify the parties or counsel before responding to the jury's request.