Opinions

Trosen, et al. v. Trosen, et al. 2022 ND 216
Docket No.: 20220048
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Watson v. State (consolidated w/20220104) 2022 ND 215
Docket No.: 20220103
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: In an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a criminal defendant must demonstrate (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Watson v. State (consolidated w/20220104) 2022 ND 215
Docket No.: 20220103
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Fercho v. Fercho, et al. 2022 ND 214
Docket No.: 20220076
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A party to a divorce action who accepts benefits pursuant to a divorce judgment does not waive the right to appeal from the judgment, overruling prior case law applying the general rule that acceptance of substantial benefits under the divorce judgment waived the right to appeal.

The court must limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or it can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

Under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, parties may contract to the disposition of property upon divorce and to the modification or elimination of spousal support.

Procedural unconscionability focuses upon formation of the contract and fairness of the bargaining process, including factors such as inequality of bargaining power, oppression, and unfair surprise. Adequate legal representation will often be the best evidence that a spouse signed a premarital agreement knowledgeably and voluntarily. Substantive unconscionability focuses on the harshness or one-sidedness of the agreement’s provisions.

A district court’s valuation and distribution of marital property are findings of fact. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.

A spousal support award must be based on both the supporting spouse’s needs and ability to pay and the receiving spouse’s income and needs. Similarly, the primary standard to award attorney’s fees under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23 is consideration of one spouse’s needs and the other spouse’s ability to pay.

Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded on appeal if any party has been dilatory in prosecuting the appeal.

Fercho v. Fercho, et al. 2022 ND 214
Docket No.: 20220076
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Provins v. WSI, et al. 2022 ND 213
Docket No.: 20220060
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: For purposes of WSI benefits, a compensable injury includes a mental or psychological condition caused by a physical injury, but only when the physical injury is determined with reasonable medical certainty to be at least fifty percent of the cause of the condition as compared with all other contributing causes combined, and only when the condition did not preexist the work injury.

Under WSI administrative rule, a mental or psychological condition must be directly caused by a physical injury. To be directly caused it must be shown with objective medical evidence that the mental or psychological condition is the physiological product of the physical injury.

Provins v. WSI, et al. 2022 ND 213
Docket No.: 20220060
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

State v. Dahl 2022 ND 212
Docket No.: 20210276
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, this Court merely reviews the record to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction.

Constructive possession is proven when the evidence establishes that the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance or paraphernalia.

When a defendant fails to preserve a claim of insufficient evidence, the Court may review for obvious error, which is a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Although the Court may decline review of forfeited errors when the appellant fails to argue the obvious error standard, the Court is not foreclosed from considering such errors. An error is obvious when it is a clear deviation from an applicable rule under current law.

Drug paraphernalia used, or possessed with intent to be used, to store a controlled substance does not satisfy the felony use element under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(1).

If even a properly instructed jury would have had insufficient evidence on which it could have convicted the defendant, the required remedy upon a conclusion there was insufficient evidence presented at trial is to enter a judgment of acquittal.

State v. Dahl 2022 ND 212
Docket No.: 20210276
Filing Date: 12/8/2022
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Dominek, et al. v. Equinor Energy, et al. 2022 ND 211
Docket No.: 20220088
Filing Date: 11/23/2022
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Under N.D.R.App.P.47, questions certified by a foreign court may be answered if the question could be determinative of the proceeding and there is no controlling precedent. The standard for answering questions certified by a foreign court is less stringent than the standard for answering a question certified by a state district court, which requires the question be determinative.

Section 38-08-08(1), N.D.C.C., does not require allocation of oil and gas production from one spacing unit to another.

The North Dakota Supreme Court will not answer certified questions absent development of the factual record because doing so exposes the court to the danger of improvidently deciding issues.