Opinions

Keller v. Bolding 2004 ND 80
Docket No.: 20030221
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A person's willful failure to destroy or prevent the spread of Canada thistle on land in the person's possession violates North Dakota's public policy.
Forfeitures of estates under leases are not favored.
A condition involving a forfeiture must be interpreted strictly against the party for whose benefit it is created.
A contract cannot be arbitrarily terminated under a provision authorizing termination.
Evidentiary imprecision on the amount of damages does not preclude recovery.

Riemers v. O'Halloran, et al. 2004 ND 79
Docket No.: 20030280
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A party waives an issue by not providing supporting argument, and without supportive reasoning or citations to relevant authorities, an argument is without merit.
Court-appointed expert witnesses are absolutely immune from suit on the basis of their testimony.
An appeal is frivolous if it is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad faith.

State v. Parizek (consolidated w/20030086 through 20030088) 2004 ND 78
Docket No.: 20030085
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Police officers may freeze a situation and conduct a limited investigative stop of persons present at the scene of a recently committed crime without violating the Fourth Amendment.
A law enforcement officer may conduct a frisk or pat down search of a person only when the officer possesses an articulable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous.
Certainty that an object is a weapon is not required before an officer may continue a pat down search to the inner clothing site where the object is located.
Generally, where an object recovered from a suspect during a pat down search is a closed container, the officer may not open the container to examine its contents unless the officer can point to specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the closed container poses a danger to the officer or others nearby.
Evidence obtained by unlawful police conduct is admissible if the prosecution proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have inevitably been discovered by lawful means.

State v. Buchholz 2004 ND 77
Docket No.: 20030275
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A party's failure to object at trial to references to, and evidence of, other alleged bad acts waives that issue.
A party's failure to submit a proposed jury instruction on consideration of evidence of other bad acts precludes a party from claiming the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on that issue.
The statute of limitations in the 1993 version of N.D.C.C. 29-04-03.1 applies to offenses for which the statute of limitations had not expired under prior law.
In the absence of specific language in a sequestration order, N.D.R.Ev. 615 does not apply to witnesses' out-of-court communications during trial.
The failure to raise a violation of the ten-day, pre-sentence report notice at sentencing waives that issue.

Gullickson v. Kline 2004 ND 76
Docket No.: 20030223
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Only a person who has been the victim of disorderly conduct, or the parent or guardian of a minor who has been a victim, may seek a disorderly conduct restraining order.
Procedural due process requires fundamental fairness, which, at a minimum, necessitates notice and a meaningful opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.

State v. Causer 2004 ND 75
Docket No.: 20030124
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: The State is required to provide prior written notice of the alleged probation violations to a probationer.
The trial court is not required to inform a probationer of his statutory right to appeal from a probation revocation. A probationer has no constitutional right to appeal and there is no notification requirement in North Dakota's statutes or rules of procedure.
A probationer does not have a constitutional right to counsel on appeal from a probation revocation because there is no constitutional right to appeal. A trial court has no duty to inform a probationer of his state-granted right to counsel, nor does a trial court have a duty to appoint counsel for a probationer, absent a probationer's request.
A probationer's right against double jeopardy is not violated by a trial court's imposition of additional probation as part of resentencing after probation is revoked.
North Dakota's statutory scheme provides a probationer with actual notice that a probation violation could result in the imposition of a sentence more severe than his originally imposed sentence.

Danzl, et al. v. Heidinger, et al. 2004 ND 74
Docket No.: 20030239
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Absent statutory or contractual authority, each party to a lawsuit bears the party's own attorney fees.

Rydberg, et al. v. Rydberg 2004 ND 73
Docket No.: 20030212
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Issues on appeal are not restricted to those raised in a motion to alter or amend the judgment as long as the issues were raised at the district court.
A statute of limitations acts only to bar the bringing of the specified action and does not affect other remedies.
Paternity can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence or by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.
Genetic tests are enough to rebut the presumption of paternity by clear and convincing evidence.

Roth v. Hoffer 2004 ND 72
Docket No.: 20030282
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

State v. Guscette 2004 ND 71
Docket No.: 20030177
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment if, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave the area.
A seizure does not occur under the Fourth Amendment simply because a law enforcement officer asks a person questions, and as long as reasonable persons would feel free to disregard the officer and go about their business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is required.
Consent to a search is voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is the product of an essentially free choice and not the product of coercion.