Opinions

Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association 2025 ND 9
Docket No.: 20240160
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed.

A court considers five factors when assessing whether a nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with North Dakota so the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice: (1) the nature and quality of a nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (2) the quantity of the nonresident defendant's contacts with North Dakota; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4) North Dakota's interest in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience of the parties. While the first three factors are of primary concern, the fourth and fifth factors are of only secondary importance and are not determinative.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(5)(A), a district court shall not impose monetary sanctions against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2).

A district court abuses its discretion by denying a party's motion for attorney's fees when the party prevails on a Rule 11 motion that is contrary to the plain language of Rule 11.

Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth 2025 ND 8
Docket No.: 20240161
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An unequal property distribution must be adequately explained by the district court.

Valuation of marital assets must be within the range of evidence presented.

A district court must apply the Ruff-Fischer guidelines when determining property distribution and spousal support in a divorce proceeding.

The proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuance.

Glaum v. Woodrow 2025 ND 7
Docket No.: 20240153
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment dismissing a civil case is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Reile v. WSI, et. al. 2025 ND 6
Docket No.: 20240135
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The authority of an administrative agency to adopt administrative rules is authority delegated by the legislative assembly. A properly promulgated regulation has the force and effect of law. A regulation that exceeds or supersedes an agency's statutory authority or conflicts with the statute it implements is invalid. The rationale for this principle is that allowing an administrative agency to promulgate rules that include substantive matters not included in the statute under which it is acting constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power. The legislature has not specifically authorized WSI to promulgate rules regulating the proof required to establish compensability for a mental or psychological condition. WSI exceeded its authority when it promulgated a rule imposing specific burdens and limitations not present in the statute the rule implements.

Interest of R.S. 2025 ND 5
Docket No.: 20240341
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

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

Poseley v. Homer Township, et al. 2025 ND 4
Docket No.: 20240174
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

An aggrieved party must appeal a local governing body's decision rather than seek injunctive or declaratory relief against the enforcement of the decision.

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2), a claim for attorney's fees not determined by the judgment must be made by motion within 21 days after notice of entry of judgment.

State v. Thompson 2025 ND 3
Docket No.: 20240117
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court may exclude otherwise relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues. A court's power to exclude relevant evidence should be exercised sparingly.

Issues not raised or considered in the district court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. However, newly raised issues may be addressed on appeal if the issue rises to the level of obvious error. The discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error need not be exercised, because it is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that affects a substantial right.

The scope of cross-examination is within the district court's discretion, the propriety of which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Reasonable limits may be placed on a defendant's cross-examination, including the exclusion of irrelevant evidence.

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240216
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240217
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Tiah v. State 2025 ND 2
Docket No.: 20240218
Filing Date: 1/9/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment denying applications for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).