Opinions

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250300
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250301
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

Disciplinary Board v. Merkens 2025 ND 149
Docket No.: 20250302
Filing Date: 9/22/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Disability/Incapacity to Practice
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Transfer to incapacity to practice law status.

State v. Lee, et al. 2025 ND 148
Docket No.: 20250136
Filing Date: 9/11/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

A party's notice of withdrawal of a motion after an order ruling on the merits of the motion has no effect on the duly issued order.

Unless an exception applies, when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor or infraction, and the injured party receives satisfaction for the injury, the court may terminate the criminal proceedings. Compromise between a defendant and injured party is one way in which a prosecution may be terminated; voluntary dismissal by the prosecuting attorney under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a) is another way. While the court has discretion in both instances, the compromise statutes do not prevent the State from moving for dismissal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a), the prosecuting attorney may not dismiss an indictment, information or complaint except on motion and with the court's approval. The prosecutor should be denied a dismissal, if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith, contrary to public interest, or intentionally harassing the defendant. The public interest exception does not allow the court to deny dismissal because it has the potential to undermine some broader societal concern. The court abuses its discretion by denying the State's unopposed motion to dismiss when the State acts in good faith and there has been no indication it has abdicated its prosecutorial duties.

State v. Lee, et al. 2025 ND 148
Docket No.: 20250137
Filing Date: 9/11/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

A party's notice of withdrawal of a motion after an order ruling on the merits of the motion has no effect on the duly issued order.

Unless an exception applies, when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor or infraction, and the injured party receives satisfaction for the injury, the court may terminate the criminal proceedings. Compromise between a defendant and injured party is one way in which a prosecution may be terminated; voluntary dismissal by the prosecuting attorney under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a) is another way. While the court has discretion in both instances, the compromise statutes do not prevent the State from moving for dismissal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a).

Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a), the prosecuting attorney may not dismiss an indictment, information or complaint except on motion and with the court's approval. The prosecutor should be denied a dismissal, if the court is satisfied that the prosecutor is acting in bad faith, contrary to public interest, or intentionally harassing the defendant. The public interest exception does not allow the court to deny dismissal because it has the potential to undermine some broader societal concern. The court abuses its discretion by denying the State's unopposed motion to dismiss when the State acts in good faith and there has been no indication it has abdicated its prosecutorial duties.

Northwest Landowners Association, et al. v. State, et al. 2025 ND 147
Docket No.: 20240298
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: There is a difference between a claim asserting a law is facially unconstitutional and a claim asserting an unconstitutional facial taking occurred. An ordinary facial challenge requires a plaintiff to prove the legislature exceeded a constitutional limitation when it enacted a law, and consequently the law on its face violates the constitution. A facial taking claim, on the other hand, is a specific type of facial challenge that asserts the mere enactment of a statute constitutes a taking.

Whether a claim is a facial or as-applied challenge is not of great import when deciding whether it has accrued for purposes of a statute of limitation. The accrual date of a facial or as- applied challenge is identical to the accrual date of other substantive claims—the date upon which the plaintiff's injury occurred and the cause of action became complete. A case alleging facial unconstitutionality is ripe not simply when the law is passed but, just like an asapplied challenge, when the government acts pursuant to that law and adversely
affects the plaintiff's rights.

Regulatory takings are different than physical takings. An important distinction between physical and regulatory takings claims is the accrual date. In a regulatory taking, it is passage of the ordinance that injures a property's value or usefulness. But a physical taking causes injury when the property itself is taken.

Garaas, et al. v. Continental Resources, et al. 2025 ND 146
Docket No.: 20250046
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Deeds are interpreted in the same manner as contracts. In construing a deed, the primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the grantor's intent.

A grantor's intent must be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. When a deed is unambiguous, the parties' intent is determined from the instrument itself.

The "safe harbor" provision in N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1(1) applies when there is a dispute of title that would affect distribution of royalty payments.

Determining 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 amount allowed for disbursements and costs is one of fact, subject to an abuse of discretion standard.

Adoption of A.B.G.R. 2025 ND 145
Docket No.: 20250232
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Adoption of A.R.G.-R. 2025 ND 145
Docket No.: 20250233
Filing Date: 8/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NEJD 2025 ND 144
Docket No.: 20250227
Filing Date: 8/18/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Devils Lake