Opinions

BeauLac v. BeauLac 2002 ND 126
Docket No.: 20010316
Filing Date: 8/15/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: To find a person in contempt of a prior court order, that person must have had actual notice or knowledge of that order.
Although the courts do not look favorably upon separating siblings in custody cases, a split custody award is not absolutely prohibited where the trial court finds that type of custody arrangement desirable under the circumstances.
Although a trial court should make specific factual findings and conclusions regarding the statutory presumption against awarding custody to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence, specific findings are not required when there is insufficient evidence of domestic violence to trigger the presumption.

Sjostrand v. ND Workers Comp., et al. 2002 ND 125
Docket No.: 20010271
Filing Date: 8/15/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The Workers Compensation Bureau's termination of an injured worker's disability benefits for a false claim or false statement, without first providing an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, does not violate the worker's right to due process of law.
The Bureau's findings on a false claim or false statement must be affirmed if they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Petition to Change Judgeship No. 2 or No. 6 from Valley City to Jamestown 2002 ND 124
Docket No.: 20020057
Filing Date: 8/2/2002
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Petition to move chambers from Valley City to Jamestown denied.

Interest of N.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2002 ND 123
Docket No.: 20020145
Filing Date: 7/17/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The district court order for continuing mental health treatment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Johnson Farms v. McEnroe 2002 ND 122
Docket No.: 20010148
Filing Date: 1/22/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is some evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

State v. Maurstad (CONSOLIDATED W/20010293) 2002 ND 121
Docket No.: 20010292
Filing Date: 7/16/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Challenges to probationary searches, authorized by a probationer's conditions of probation, are reviewed under the standard of whether the search was reasonable, after examining the totality of the circumstances, including whether the search was performed in a reasonable manner.
Whether a probationary search was conducted as a subterfuge for a criminal investigation is no longer considered.

Lithun, et al. v. DuPaul 2002 ND 120
Docket No.: 20020008
Filing Date: 7/16/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Matrix v. TAG Investments, et al. 2002 ND 119
Docket No.: 20020026
Filing Date: 7/16/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order and judgment offsetting the amounts the parties owed each other are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), subject to an adjustment of damages and a reduction in costs.

Kautzman v. Kautzman (Cross-ref.w/980004,990328,990386 & 20000083) 2002 ND 118
Docket No.: 20010296
Filing Date: 7/16/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A change of substance that contradicts the transcript of a deposition is impermissible unless it can plausibly be represented as the correction of an error in transcription.

Brandt v. Milbrath 2002 ND 117
Docket No.: 20010294
Filing Date: 7/15/2002
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Although prior driving behavior may be probative of negligence and comparative negligence, it may be excluded because of a witness's uncertainty as to the identity of the vehicle or driver.
The district court and appellate court apply different standards when considering a motion for a new trial.
When considering a motion for a new trial, based on insufficient evidence, the district court must weigh the evidence and examine the evidence supporting the verdict and the evidence challenging the verdict.
On appeal, the standard for reviewing an order denying a motion for new trial is, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.