Opinions

Dowhan v. Brockman, et al. 2001 ND 70
Docket No.: 20000249
Filing Date: 4/12/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: The question of who is a prevailing party for an award of disbursements is a question of law, subject to de novo review, while the question of the amounts to be allowed for disbursements is one of fact, subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review.
A prevailing party for an award of disbursements is one who prevails on the merits of the main issue.

Hentz v. Hentz 2001 ND 69
Docket No.: 20000239
Filing Date: 4/12/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Past unreasonable behavior in withholding contact between the noncustodial parent and the child is a relevant fact for the trial court to weigh in considering the custodial parent's motion to relocate to another state.

Interest of M.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2001 ND 68
Docket No.: 20000183
Filing Date: 4/12/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: To terminate the parental rights for an Indian child, the Indian Child Welfare Act requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
To terminate parental rights for an Indian child, the Indian Child Welfare Act requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that there were active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and those efforts were unsuccessful.
When cultural bias is not implicated in parental termination proceedings, the requirement of qualified expert witness testimony under the Indian Child Welfare Act can be met with testimony of a professional person having substantial education and experience in the area of his or her speciality even though that professional does not have specific experience or knowledge of Indian customs, tradition, or culture.

Midwestern Enterprises, Inc. v. Stenehjem 2001 ND 67
Docket No.: 20000168
Filing Date: 4/12/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: "Gambling apparatus" means any device, machine, paraphernalia, or equipment that is used or usable in the playing phases of any gambling activity, whether that activity consists of gambling between persons, or gambling by a person involving the playing of a machine.
"Coin-operated gaming device" means any machine that is a so-called "slot" machine that operates by means of the insertion of a coin, token, or similar object and which, by application of the element of chance, may deliver, or entitle the person playing or operating the machine to receive cash, premiums, merchandise, or tokens.

State v. Duchene 2001 ND 66
Docket No.: 20000209
Filing Date: 4/11/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Misleading statements made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard are stricken from an affidavit in support of search warrant, and the affidavit's remaining contents are examined to determine whether that information is sufficient to establish probable cause.

State v. Klein 2001 ND 65
Docket No.: 20000285
Filing Date: 4/11/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Appeal from criminal judgment and commitment following a jury verdict of guilty is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

State v. Axtman 2001 ND 64
Docket No.: 20000262
Filing Date: 4/11/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgment of conviction for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Disciplinary Board v. Keller 2001 ND 63
Docket No.: 20010068
Filing Date: 3/28/2001
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered.

Peters-Riemers v. Riemers 2001 ND 62
Docket No.: 20000145
Filing Date: 3/23/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Error may not be predicated upon the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected.
Only a willful violation of a protection order results in penalty.
An issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance, et al. (Cross Ref. w/19970319) 2001 ND 61
Docket No.: 20000226
Filing Date: 3/20/2001
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: It is inappropriate to bring a motion for judgment as a matter of law, under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a), in a bench trial.
A court can award damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other noneconomic losses even though the plaintiff has not introduced evidence of economic damages, such as loss of earnings or medical expenses.