Opinions

Van Beek v. Van Beek, et al. 2025 ND 96
Docket No.: 20240319
Filing Date: 5/22/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court may consider economic misconduct as a basis for an unequal distribution of the marital estate. However, this Court has not previously recognized economic misconduct as a basis for increasing the marital estate through "potential" income or by imputing income.

Attorney's fees awarded under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-29(4) against a perpetrator of domestic violence extends to the recovery for the costs and attorney's fees incurred in a subsequent appeal.

ICON HD v. National Sports Opportunity Partners, et al. 2025 ND 95
Docket No.: 20240265
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party must include affirmative defenses in its responsive pleading.

A party may have privity with another party that bars new litigation under res judicata.

Releases contained in a settlement agreement are subject to normal rules of contract interpretation.

Nagle v. Nagle 2025 ND 94
Docket No.: 20240260
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of that judgment.

A district court considers the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when distributing marital property. The "duration of the marriage" factor is only one factor and is the length of the marriage being dissolved by the court, irrespective of whether there was a prior marriage or marriages with the same party or another person.

In a short-term marriage, the district court may return to the parties what they brought into the marriage, but the division of property and debt must be equitable.

Matter of Robinson 2025 ND 93
Docket No.: 20250057
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A person with a felony conviction petitioning for a name change must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the name change request is not based upon an intent to defraud or mislead, is made in good faith, will not cause injury to an individual, and will not compromise public safety.

ND Indoor RV Park v. State, et al. 2025 ND 92
Docket No.: 20240293
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The right to appeal is governed by statute, and without a statutory basis to hear an appeal, we do not have jurisdiction and we must dismiss the appeal.

This Court's authority to issue supervisory writs is derived from Art. VI, § 2, N.D. Const., which vests this Court with appellate and original jurisdiction with authority to issue, hear, and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary to properly exercise its jurisdiction. This Court exercises its discretionary authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only in cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists.

Public officials are protected by qualified immunity unless it is shown that (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.

To prove a substantive due process violation, one must establish a constitutionally protected property interest and that a public official used their power in such an arbitrary and oppressive way that it shocks the conscience.

To prove a procedural due process violation, one must establish that: (1) a public official deprived them of some life, liberty, or property interest, and (2) the deprivation of that interest was done without due process. Procedural due process necessitates a notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is generally appropriate if the plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies.

State v. Taylor 2025 ND 91
Docket No.: 20240033
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The omission of a single juror's response to a jury poll in a trial transcript does not establish a violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when the record sufficiently demonstrates the existence of other safeguards ensuring that the jury was properly impaneled and returned a unanimous verdict free of coercion or pressure.

The district court has wide discretion over the mode and order of presenting evidence, and over the use of extrinsic evidence to refresh memory or impeach a witness based on a prior inconsistent statement.

A sentencing decision will only be vacated if the district court acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NECJD 2025 ND 90
Docket No.: 20250094
Filing Date: 4/30/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, SCJD 2025 ND 89
Docket No.: 20250083
Filing Date: 4/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Bismarck

Fowler v. Fowler, et al. 2025 ND 88
Docket No.: 20240308
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An attorney's fees sanction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 must comply with safeguards in the rule.

A court abuses its discretion by deeming an action frivolous if the claim is grounded in a good faith argument for an extension of the current interpretation of the law.

A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 if the action is not frivolous.

Zittleman v. Bibler, et al. 2025 ND 87
Docket No.: 20240196
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party's due process rights were not violated by limiting the time of a hearing and preemptively allocating time to both parties.

A district court did not abuse its discretion when it limits the length of a hearing.

If a party desires more time for a hearing than a district court has scheduled, the party must object to the time limitations or move for a continuance.

A district court is not required to conduct a best interests analysis if it finds there has been no material change in circumstances.

A district court is not required to modify a residential responsibility judgment beyond the motion requested by a party.