Opinions

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.

Giese v. Giese (cross-ref. w/20020168) 2004 ND 58
Docket No.: 20030278
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Civil contempt requires a willful and inexcusable intent to violate a court order. The trial court's finding of contempt will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.
A trial court may award attorney fees as part of the compensation to a complainant in contempt proceedings.

Interest of D.V.A. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2004 ND 57
Docket No.: 20030304
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Experts in proceedings to commit sexually dangerous individuals may rely upon information reasonably relied upon by other experts in the particular field when forming opinions regarding whether an individual is sexually dangerous.
Information relied upon by experts in commitment proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 need not be admissible in evidence.
N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3 does not require the State to establish a respondent is not mentally retarded.

Ensign v. Bank of Baker 2004 ND 56
Docket No.: 20030234
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The filing of a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement by a nonresident defendant and its two inspections of collateral in the forum state do not constitute a voluntary or purposeful effort to do business in the forum state for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.

Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co., et al. 2004 ND 55
Docket No.: 20030171
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Under premises liability law, a defendant must have had control over the property where the injury occurred in order to find the defendant owed a duty to entrants upon the property.
Although a landowner generally owes a duty to lawful entrants to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition, the landowner's duty is limited when a dangerous condition is known or obvious to the entrant.
A landowner is not liable to entrants for injury caused by a known or obvious danger unless the landowner should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.
The determination whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact.

Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, Director, DOT 2004 ND 54
Docket No.: 20030292
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: In an administrative agency appeal, the specifications of error must identify what matters are truly at issue with sufficient specificity to fairly apprise the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed.
The purpose of the specificity requirement is to prevent meaningless specifications of error.
Boilerplate specifications of error are insufficient as a matter of law.
A fact-finder can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.

State v. Schiele 2004 ND 53
Docket No.: 20030294
Filing Date: 3/23/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for luring a minor by computer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Interest of K.P. (CONFIDENTIAL) (cross-ref. w/20030175) 2004 ND 52
Docket No.: 20040049
Filing Date: 3/10/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The party moving for a change of venue must establish that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
To modify an alternative treatment order and require hospitalization, the district court must find noncompliance with the terms of the order or find the order is insufficient to prevent the individual under the order from inflicting harm or injuries upon the individual or others.
Any amount of noncompliance with an alternative treatment order is cause for modification.