Opinions

State v. Provost (cross-ref. w/20030227 & 20030229-20030231) 2004 ND 68
Docket No.: 20030228
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for simple assault on a peace officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

State v. Stensaker 2004 ND 67
Docket No.: 20030204
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Heinz v. Heinz 2004 ND 66
Docket No.: 20030301
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Amended divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Jundt v. Jurassic Resources, et al. (cross-ref. w/20010313) 2004 ND 65
Docket No.: 20030216
Filing Date: 3/26/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: What could have been presented in a prior appeal may not be heard on a later appeal.
A N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 settlement offer must present a clear baseline from which plaintiffs may evaluate the merits of their case relative to the value of the offer.
To trigger the mandatory cost-shifting provision, a defendant seeking costs under N.D.R.Civ.P. 68 must show that the offer was more favorable than the judgment.

Graves v. State Board of Law Examiners 2004 ND 64
Docket No.: 20030137
Filing Date: 3/26/2004
Case Type: Board of Law Examiners - Other - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The due process clause requires that the State Board of Law Examiners employ fair procedures, including a fair and impartial tribunal, when processing applications for admission to the bar.

St. Benedict's Health Center v. ND Dept. of Human Services 2004 ND 63
Docket No.: 20030289
Filing Date: 3/25/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Administrative regulations for setting Medicaid reimbursement rates involve complex and technical matters calling for agency expertise, and the Department of Human Services' expertise in interpreting its reimbursement regulations is entitled to deference.

Oldham v. Oldham 2004 ND 62
Docket No.: 20030072
Filing Date: 3/25/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument.
Without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.

Gratech Company, Ltd., et al. v. ND Dept. of Transportation 2004 ND 61
Docket No.: 20030203
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: All disputes arising out of any contract entered into by the Department of Transportation for the construction or repair of highways must be submitted to arbitration.
As a condition precedent to arbitration of a highway construction dispute, a contractor seeking additional compensation for work not covered in the contract must file a written notice of claim.

Nodak Mutual Ins. Co., et al. v. Ward Co. Farm Bureau, et al. 2004 ND 60
Docket No.: 20030134
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A defendant must have standing to assert a counterclaim against a plaintiff.
The existence of standing is a question of law which is reviewed de novo.
Individual shareholders generally have no right to bring actions in their individual names and on their own behalf for a wrong committed against the corporation.
To have standing to sue individually, a shareholder must allege an injury separate and distinct from other shareholders.
The statutory right to shareholder access to corporate documents and records provides a right of inspection, not a right to receive answers to questions submitted by shareholders.

Johnson v. ND Dept. of Transportation 2004 ND 59
Docket No.: 20030339
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The twenty-minute waiting period required before the administration of an Intoxilyzer test can begin before arrest.
The waiting period from the S-D2 test can be used when ascertaining the twenty-minute waiting period for the Intoxilyzer test.
Observing someone is not the only way to ascertain that person has had nothing to eat, drink, or smoke during the twenty minutes preceding an Intoxilyzer test.
A fact-finder can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.