Opinions

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 104
Docket No.: 20240350
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Deprivation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court order extending placement of a child in the custody and control of the Grand Forks County Human Service Zone for a period of twelve months after finding the child is a child in need of protection is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Leingang 2025 ND 103
Docket No.: 20240243
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Issues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate plain error which affected his substantial rights. However, if a party fails to argue obvious error, it is difficult for this Court to conclude this burden has been satisfied and this Court need not address it further.

Under Rule 1004(a), N.D.R.Ev., an original is not required, and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith.

Interest of D.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250111
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Interest of C.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250112
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Interest of M.B. 2025 ND 102
Docket No.: 20250113
Filing Date: 6/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Severson v. Gupta, et al. 2025 ND 101
Docket No.: 20240292
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An appeal from a district court judgment granting a motion for summary judgment is reviewed under the de novo standard.

N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 allows a court to grant summary judgment for prompt and expeditious disposition of a controversy without a trial if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and if no dispute exists as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if resolving disputed facts would not alter the result.

A district court did not err granting a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim of medical malpractice because the plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit containing an expert opinion as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46.

Holm v. Holm 2025 ND 100
Docket No.: 20240246
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: This Court may summarily affirm judgments and orders when briefs do not meet the minimum requirements of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Under the applicable rules, if an electronically filed document is rejected, the tolling of the filing does not change the date of service, which is the date the document was transmitted.

The statutory default valuation date under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24(1) is "sixty days before the initially scheduled trial date," not the date of trial.

When a court uses the parties' mutually agreed-to valuations, the court's finding of a different valuation date is harmless as to those assets and debts.

A district court places a value on martial property based on the evidence presented by the parties. When the court is "not given much information" regarding the value of a marital asset, the court's decision is limited by the parties' failure to provide information.

State v. Weltikol 2025 ND 99
Docket No.: 20240336
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

State v. Lewellyn 2025 ND 98
Docket No.: 20240295
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: To determine whether a defendant's right to counsel has been violated, this Court has developed a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the defendant's waiver was voluntary; and (2) whether the defendant's waiver was knowing and intelligent. A defendant may indicate a voluntary desire for self-representation with an unequivocal statement or with conduct that is the functional equivalent of such a statement. A knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel depends on the facts and circumstances and requires the defendant to be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so the record establishes the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.

Motions for continuance must be promptly filed as soon as the grounds are known and will be granted only for good cause shown. This Court will not reverse a district court's decision to deny a continuance absent an abuse of discretion.

State v. Lewellyn 2025 ND 97
Docket No.: 20240294
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: This Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed.

A party waives an error when the party is given the opportunity to address it and intentionally relinquishes the opportunity.