Opinions

Byrd v. State 2025 ND 55
Docket No.: 20240252
Filing Date: 3/28/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order and judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

Conspiracy to commit intentional murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) is a cognizable offense.

A defendant pleads guilty by Alford plea to a cognizable offense if sufficient factual basis supports the conviction. A simultaneous Alford plea to a noncognizable offense may be harmless error.

Ceynar v. Ceynar 2025 ND 53
Docket No.: 20240194
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: In general, a lengthy marriage supports an equal division of all marital assets. The origin of the property, such as inheritance, is only one factor to consider under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines.

Preserving the viability of a business operation like a family farm is important and liquidation of an ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a last resort. This laudable purpose, however, is to be achieved only if it is possible to do so without detriment to the other party. The goal of preserving a farming business does not call for a windfall for one spouse. Property divisions are based on the particular circumstances of each case. Ordering the sale of a ranch is not erroneous where the party challenging the sale only proposed an unequal division of the property and did not show he depends on the ranching operation for his livelihood; the location, quantity, or value of the minerals is relatively unknown; and the ranch would otherwise be difficult to divide.

State v. Medina 2025 ND 52
Docket No.: 20240249
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Hersha v. State 2025 ND 51
Docket No.: 20240270
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

Zent v. NDDHHS 2025 ND 50
Docket No.: 20240222
Filing Date: 3/6/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The Court affirms the Department of Health and Human Services Division of Vocational Rehabilitation decision to discontinue vocational rehabilitation services.

The application and interpretation of a statute is a question of law that is fully reviewable in an administrative appeal.

Administrative regulations are derivatives of statutes and are construed under rules of statutory construction. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.

The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services administers vocational rehabilitation services with federal funding through the State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program. The federal statutes and attendant regulations governing the State Vocational Rehabilitation Program are clear that the provision of vocational rehabilitation services is premised on assisting disabled individuals achieve competitive integrated employment. To satisfy the requirements of competitive integrated employment, a job position must meet each of the elements articulated under 34 C.F.R. §?361.5(c)(9). Whether a job position meets the requirements of competitive integrated employment is determined on a case-by-case basis.

The clear and convincing standard applies only to eligibility determinations for vocational rehabilitation services. For all other agency determinations, the preponderance of the evidence standard applies.

Disciplinary Board v. Spencer 2025 ND 49
Docket No.: 20240339
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Suspension
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer suspension ordered.

Higgins, et al. v. Lund, et al. 2025 ND 47
Docket No.: 20240083
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A judgment which adjudicates all claims and does not anticipate or direct further action is appealable.

When interpreting a contract, N.D.C.C. § 9-07-06 provides that the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable. If the granting clause describes the land as being an undivided interest in the land and a subsequent reservation which reserves a fractional part of the "land conveyed," or words of similar import, the reservation will be construed as reserving to the grantor the stated fractional interest of the fraction described in the granting clause.

A Duhig problem does not arise when a grantor, who owns an undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in a parcel of land via partnership, conveys the undivided onehalf (1/2) interest in the land's surface and a one-fourth (1/4) interest in land's minerals but reserves for himself the other one-fourth (1/4) interest in the minerals of the same land.

An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms. Indefiniteness as to any essential element of the agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract. Stipulations as to the law are also invalid.

Language tying a royalty interest to another interest, such as a one-eighth royalty interest of an eight percent interest, creates a floating royalty.

State v. Williams 2025 ND 46
Docket No.: 20240203
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A Brady violation is established when the defendant proves the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant, the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence, the prosecution suppressed the evidence, and a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

To prevail on a Brady claim a defendant must satisfy all four prongs or factors of the legal test.

When an issue is not raised at the trial court, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

A defendant's due process rights may be violated by a prosecutor's actions that constitute misconduct that has a prejudicial effect.

Hoistad v. NDDOT 2025 ND 45
Docket No.: 20240297
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The Department bears the burden of proving a chemical breath test result was fairly administered. If the Department fails to establish compliance with the approved method which goes to the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test, the Department must prove fair administration of the test through expert testimony.

When it is ready for the second breath sample, the Intoxilyzer 8000 displays, "Please Blow Until Tone Stops." The word "until" in this context signifies the point at which the driver should cease blowing into the instrument. Repeatedly blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stopped is contrary to the instructions displayed by the Intoxilyzer 8000 and, thus, the approved method.

Unless the impact of a deviation is within the knowledge of an ordinary person, it is the Department's burden to show through expert testimony whether a deviation from the approved method impacted the accuracy and reliability of the test. An ordinary person does not know what impact, if any, a subject's repeated blowing into the Intoxilyzer after the tone stops has on the test results.

When the officer's deviations from the approved method involve the procedures for collecting and testing the sample, it raises the possibility that the deviation impacted the test result.

Even though the Department's action is not upheld by a court, a party is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-50(1) when the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision.

State v. Plentychief 2025 ND 44
Docket No.: 20240334
Filing Date: 2/27/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: Motion to reconsider order of dismissal denied.