Opinions

Anderson v. Foss, et al. 1 0.N.W3 d570
Docket No.: 20240008
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A district court did not abuse its discretion when setting the commencement date for the new child support obligation one year from the date of the motion to modify.

A district court did not err in ruling that timely requests for health insurance related reimbursements was not necessary when the requests became futile and when the amount owed to the parent making the requests is the same amount each month.

A district court's findings removing one parent's ability to make day-to-day decisions are not clearly erroneous.

McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek, et al. 1 5.N.W3 d12
Docket No.: 20240275
Filing Date: 1/24/2025
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Civil - Writ of Supervision
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Disciplinary Board v. Spencer 003 N.W.3d 122
Docket No.: 20240012
Filing Date: 12/12/2024
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Northstar Center v. Lukenbill Family Partnership, et al. 1 4.N.W3 d45
Docket No.: 20240034
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Summary judgment should not constitute mini-trials of factual issues and is not appropriate when the court must draw inferences or make findings on disputed facts.

The elements of a prima facie case for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach of the contract; and (3) damages which flow from the breach. A breach of contract is the nonperformance of a contractual duty when it is due. While construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect presents a question of law, whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact.

An interference with contract claim contemplates a tortfeasor who either prevented a third party from entering into a contract or induced the third party to breach the contract with the plaintiff. To establish a prima facie case for intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must prove (1) a contract existed, (2) the contract was breached, (3) the defendant instigated the breach, and (4) the defendant instigated the breach without justification.

To prevail on an intentional interference with contract claim, the plaintiff must show the defendant acted intentionally, and the intent required goes beyond the traditional tort concept of intent. The plaintiff must show the defendant specifically intended to interfere with the plaintiff's contractual rights, or acted with knowledge that the interference would result. A party's intent generally presents a question of fact.

An indemnity is a contract by which one engages to save another from a legal consequence of the conduct of one of the parties or of some other person. Indemnification is a remedy which allows a party to recover reimbursement from another for the discharge of a liability which, as between them, should have been discharged by the other.

Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al. 6.N.W3 d657
Docket No.: 20230110
Filing Date: 8/1/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Recovery under a theory of negligence requires a plaintiff to show the defendant owed a duty of care. Whether a duty exists is a legal question to be decided on the facts. Under premises liability law, landowners owe a general duty to lawful entrants to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances. A landowner's duty to protect entrants upon the land or warn of dangerous conditions is limited when the dangerous condition is known or obvious to the entrant. Roadways present an open and obvious danger to pedestrians of being struck by vehicular traffic. A landowner may have a duty to protect against open and obvious dangers when there is reason to expect that an entrant's attention may be distracted. The distraction exception is not available when the plaintiff is the source of inattention.

Interest of H.J.J.N. 9.N.W3 d656
Docket No.: 20240060
Filing Date: 7/5/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Brown v. State 6.N.W3 d823
Docket No.: 20230364
Filing Date: 6/20/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The definition of official detention does not preclude custody while on probation.

An unambiguous sentence pronouncement controls over an ambiguous sentence, whether oral or written.

When there is an ambiguity between two sentences, the record must be examined to determine the district court's intent.

Peltier v. State (consolidated w/20230392)
Docket No.: 20230391
Filing Date: 5/16/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's order on petitions is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2).

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 8, ECJD
Docket No.: 20240055
Filing Date: 4/23/2024
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Vacancy retained at Fargo

Interest of J.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(consolidated w/ 20230378) 002 N.W.3d 228
Docket No.: 20230377
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court errs when it relies on facts which are outside of the evidentiary record when exercising its discretion to terminate parental rights.