Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John and Stacy Bang own several parcels of real property in Dunn County, including the subject property in this dispute. They own both the surface and mineral estates. In May 2004, John Bang executed an oil and gas lease agreement with Diamond Resources, Inc., whose successor, Continental Resources, Inc., is the operator and holds the mineral lease. Continental notified the Bangs of its intent to install oil and gas facilities on the property, which the Bangs objected to. Continental subsequently constructed various facilities on the property.The Bangs filed a lawsuit against Continental in 2022, alleging trespass, seeking an injunction, and claiming damages under North Dakota law. The district court denied the Bangs' motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Continental filed a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against John Bang, which was consolidated with the Bangs' case. In January 2024, the district court granted Continental partial summary judgment, declaring Continental had the right to install a pipeline corridor and denied the Bangs' claims for trespass and permanent injunction. The court also denied Continental summary judgment on damages. A jury trial in February 2024 awarded the Bangs $97,621.90 for their compensation claims. The Bangs' motions for a new trial and other relief were denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's amended judgment and order denying a new trial. The court held that the lease was unambiguous and provided Continental the authority to install pipeline facilities on the subject property. The court also upheld the district court's evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of certain expert testimony and evidence of settlement agreements, and the exclusion of speculative evidence of future agricultural damages. The court found no error in the jury instructions and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Bangs' motions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60. View "Bang v. Continental Resources" on Justia Law

In this case, Donald Neuens entered into a contract for deed with Dorothy Czajkowski for the sale of property in Golden Valley County, North Dakota. Czajkowski agreed to pay $60,000 for the property, with a down payment and the remaining balance to be paid in monthly installments at an interest rate of 6%, along with property taxes. After Neuens passed away, the Axvigs purchased his interest from his estate. The Axvigs then initiated a quiet title action against Czajkowski to cancel the contract for deed, alleging that Czajkowski had abandoned the property, failed to make the required payments, and failed to pay the property taxes.The District Court of Golden Valley County awarded summary judgment in favor of the Axvigs, concluding that the contract for deed was canceled and awarding the property to the Axvigs. The court found that the contract allowed the Axvigs to proceed with a court action without providing notice and an opportunity to cure the default. Czajkowski appealed, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the contract and failed to allow a redemption period.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the amended judgment. The court held that the contract for deed was unambiguous and required the seller to provide notice of default and an opportunity to cure before seeking cancellation. The court found that the district court misinterpreted the contract by allowing the Axvigs to proceed with the cancellation action without first providing the required notice and time to cure the default. The Supreme Court concluded that the Axvigs breached the contract by not providing the necessary notice of default before initiating the cancellation action. View "Axvig v. Czajkowski" on Justia Law

In July 2021, the State charged Kamauri Kennedy with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Two weeks before the trial, Kennedy's counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to non-payment of legal fees, which the court denied. The trial was initially set for April 2024 but was continued to September 2024 due to late-discovered evidence. Kennedy's counsel filed another motion to withdraw, citing the winding down of his legal practice, which was also denied. Kennedy proceeded to trial in September 2024, where the court granted his motion for acquittal on the conspiracy charge, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life without parole.The District Court of Ward County denied Kennedy's requests for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. Kennedy did not object to the introduction of prior bad acts evidence during the trial, which he later argued should have been excluded. The court found that Kennedy invited the error by introducing his criminal history during voir dire and through jury instructions. The court also noted that Kennedy's failure to object precluded the State from arguing the evidence's admissibility and the court from conducting the necessary analysis.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that Kennedy invited the error regarding the prior bad acts evidence and failed to demonstrate that the district court committed obvious error by not excluding the evidence. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kennedy's request for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. The court emphasized the importance of timely objections and the potential strategic reasons for not objecting to evidence during the trial. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Orion Tyler Berkley was convicted of child abuse, a class B felony, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22(1) and was ordered to register as an offender against children. The information alleged that Berkley, the father of the victim, inflicted or allowed bodily injury on his approximately two-year-old child. At sentencing, Berkley argued that registration as an offender against children was not mandatory and that the court should not order it. However, the district court believed it was required by law and ordered Berkley to register for a minimum of 15 years.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over by Judge Benjamen J. Johnson, determined that registration was mandatory under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. The court expressed difficulty in interpreting the statute but concluded that it required parents who commit offenses against children to register. Berkley appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation and that it abused its discretion by requiring him to register.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the statute ambiguous. The court examined the legislative history and the context of the statute, concluding that the district court misinterpreted the statute. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(d) allows the court to deviate from the registration requirement if the offender has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child and did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct, unless the offense is described in specific sections and the person is not the parent of the victim. The court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the registration requirement. View "State v. Berkley" on Justia Law

In February 2024, Nataneil Tekie Solomon was charged with gross sexual imposition and contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a minor. At his arraignment in March 2024, Solomon pleaded not guilty and requested a speedy trial. The trial was scheduled for July 30, 2024, due to scheduling conflicts among the parties and the court. Solomon's counsel withdrew in May 2024, and new counsel was appointed. At the beginning of the trial, Solomon's counsel moved to dismiss the case for violation of his right to a speedy trial, which the district court denied, citing good cause for the delay.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, found good cause to extend the trial date beyond the 90-day statutory period due to scheduling conflicts and the agreement of Solomon's counsel to the July date. The court noted that neither party requested an earlier date when given the opportunity. The jury subsequently convicted Solomon on both counts.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the speedy trial determination de novo. The court considered the four Barker factors: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the delay was 41 days, caused by scheduling conflicts, and that Solomon had asserted his right to a speedy trial. However, Solomon did not demonstrate specific prejudice resulting from the delay.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in finding good cause for the delay and affirmed the denial of Solomon's motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Solomon" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) initiated a civil action against Boechler PC and Jeanette Boechler for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, penalties, and interest for periods ending in mid-August 2019. WSI was awarded a judgment of $11,661.99, mostly penalties, against the corporation, and the claim against Boechler personally was dismissed without prejudice. In May 2022, WSI filed a second action against the corporation and Boechler personally for additional amounts not included in the previous judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of WSI against the corporation for $10,854.53 but identified issues regarding Boechler’s personal liability.The district court found that Boechler, as president of the corporation, was personally liable for unpaid premiums but not for penalties related to the failure to file payroll reports. The court awarded WSI $5,802, holding that Boechler’s personal liability did not extend to penalties for failing to file payroll reports and that personal liability only applied to amounts determined as of the date of WSI’s decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the district court correctly interpreted N.D.C.C. § 65-04-26.1 to mean that Boechler’s personal liability does not include penalties for failing to file payroll reports. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred in determining that personal liability only applied to amounts existing as of the date of the decision. The Supreme Court concluded that Boechler’s personal liability should include amounts accruing after the WSI determination of her liability. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with its opinion. View "WSI v. Boechler" on Justia Law

C.C. is the mother of B.F. and I.F. In November 2021, she left the children with their paternal uncle, who provided a stable home. In November 2022, the children came under the protective custody of the Cass County Human Service Zone (CHSZ) due to concerns of parental abandonment. The whereabouts of A.F., the father, were unknown. In March 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated the children as needing protection and placed them in CHSZ custody for nine months, finding aggravating factors and adopting a reunification plan. In December 2023, CHSZ filed a petition to terminate C.C.'s parental rights but later amended it to extend CHSZ custody for nine months due to C.C.'s progress. In February 2024, the court granted CHSZ custody for an additional nine months with concurrent plans of reunification and termination.In October 2024, CHSZ petitioned to terminate C.C. and A.F.'s parental rights, citing C.C.'s failure to maintain progress on the reunification plan. C.C. attended the initial hearing and a status conference in December 2024 but failed to attend the February 2025 status conference. The court found C.C. and A.F. in default and terminated their parental rights, noting C.C.'s continued drug use, failure to secure stable housing and employment, and lack of consistent participation in visitations and services.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in finding C.C. in default and that the evidence supported the termination of parental rights. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying C.C.'s motion to vacate the default judgment and concluded that the termination did not violate C.C.'s constitutional due process rights. View "Interest of B.F." on Justia Law

Elizabeth Sanda and Derek Sanda were married in 2016, having started dating in 2014. Elizabeth brought significant assets into the marriage, including trusts and future inheritances protected by a premarital agreement, while Derek had a negative net worth. During the marriage, Elizabeth used her inheritance to fund various expenses, including a home down payment, mortgage payments, and Derek's business operations. Derek contributed through home renovations and his carpentry business, which was not highly profitable. The couple lived beyond their means, relying heavily on Elizabeth's inheritance.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Jackson J. Lofgren, handled the divorce proceedings. The court issued an interim order in February 2024, granting Elizabeth exclusive use of the marital home and her vehicle, while Derek was awarded his vehicle. During the trial, disputes arose over the classification of certain assets and debts, including a vehicle trade and attorney's fees. The court found that Derek improperly dissipated marital property by trading a vehicle without approval and determined that Elizabeth's inheritance, though used during the marriage, should be considered in the property division.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the property division was equitable. The court emphasized the origin of Elizabeth's inheritance and the couple's financial conduct during the marriage. The court also upheld the district court's decisions regarding the valuation date, classification of assets, and responsibility for attorney's fees. The judgment awarded Elizabeth a larger share of the marital estate, with an additional payment to Derek to achieve equity. View "Sanda v. Sanda" on Justia Law

In 2021, a jury convicted an individual of gross sexual imposition involving his 13-year-old cousin, resulting in her pregnancy. DNA evidence established a high probability that he was the father. During the trial, the prosecutor asked an improper question regarding family support for the victim and defendant, which led to a defense objection and a curative instruction from the judge. The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied. On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the improper question was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, as the jury was instructed to disregard it.Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief in the District Court of Cass County, later amending it to argue that three recent North Dakota Supreme Court decisions involving the same prosecutor constituted newly discovered evidence of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court analyzed the claim under the standard for newly discovered evidence, finding that while the cited cases were decided after the defendant’s trial, they were not material to the issues at trial and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court also held that the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had already been fully litigated and decided on direct appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. It held that the recent decisions did not constitute newly discovered evidence material to the trial’s issues and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court further concluded that the claim was barred by res judicata because it had been fully and finally determined on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying postconviction relief. View "Bazile v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Ciro Gomez was charged and found guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. In September 2024, Gomez filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming a significant change in law and newly discovered evidence proving his innocence. The State moved for summary disposition, and the district court dismissed Gomez’s petition but later granted reconsideration. In January 2025, the court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely without an evidentiary hearing. Gomez appealed.The district court ruled that there had been no substantive change in the law applicable to Gomez’s case. Gomez had relied on State v. Noble, but the court found that Noble did not represent a significant change in the law. The court also determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not new, as it was known to Gomez at the time of his trial or discovered more than two years before filing the petition.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Gomez’s petition was untimely and did not meet the exceptions to the two-year filing rule under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3). The court found that the evidence Gomez presented was not newly discovered and that any new information was known to him three years prior, exceeding the two-year limit for filing a postconviction relief application. Therefore, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Gomez’s petition. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law