Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

KNB Properties LLC and Delta Dawn, LLP, appealed a judgment and an order denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. They argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Cass County. The case revolves around whether KNB needed the County’s approval under its subdivision ordinance for its development of an unplatted parcel of land in Stanley Township, which KNB bought in October 2017. KNB constructed a commercial building on the parcel and later subdivided it into two parcels, conveying one to Delta Dawn by warranty deed in 2021.The District Court of Cass County initially denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding disputed issues of material fact. Later, it granted the County’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that KNB’s creation of two auditor’s lots and the conveyance of one lot to Delta Dawn in 2021 triggered the subdivision ordinance. The court issued a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the subdivision ordinance before any further development, sale, or transfer of the parcel. KNB and Delta Dawn’s counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the subdivision ordinance was not violated until the act of subdivision in 2021. The court held that the County’s authority was not implicated until KNB platted the parcel into two parcels and conveyed one to Delta Dawn. The court found that the district court erred in granting a permanent injunction and that the proper remedy was to void the conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn, thus restoring the KNB parcel to its original size. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter an amended judgment vacating the auditor’s lots and restoring the parties to their original positions. View "Cass Co. v. KNB Properties" on Justia Law

McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("McKenzie Electric") petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate its order of recusal, deny the motion for recusal, and reassign the case back to Judge El-Dweek. The case began in November 2019, and in July 2020, Judge El-Dweek disclosed his membership in McKenzie Electric. Discovery continued through 2023, and McKenzie Electric disclosed it was seeking significant damages. In May 2024, the respondents filed a motion for a change of venue due to potential juror bias. Following a hearing, the respondents filed a motion for recusal, which Judge El-Dweek granted, citing the appearance of impropriety.The district court's decision to recuse was based on the judge's membership in McKenzie Electric and the potential financial interest he might have in the case's outcome. The respondents argued that the judge's financial interest created a reasonable question regarding his impartiality. The district court agreed and granted the motion for recusal, despite acknowledging the timing of the motion was suspect.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the petition for a supervisory writ. The court emphasized that supervisory writs are issued rarely and cautiously, only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court concluded that the claimed injustice, primarily stemming from delay, could not be remedied by granting the writ. The court also noted that any error in granting or denying recusal could be addressed on appeal. Consequently, the North Dakota Supreme Court denied McKenzie Electric's petition for a supervisory writ, finding that this case did not warrant the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. View "McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek" on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

Barry Lindeman was convicted of gross sexual imposition in January 2021 and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment with ten years suspended, along with fifty years of probation. On direct appeal, the conviction and sentence were summarily affirmed. In February 2022, Lindeman filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial attorneys failed to file a motion to suppress his confessions and did not request funding to retain an expert witness to testify about the veracity of the confessions.The District Court of Ward County granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Lindeman failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or substantial prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lindeman did not provide any evidence that he was substantially prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Specifically, Lindeman did not explain why or how he would have prevailed on a motion to suppress his confessions. Additionally, he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to retain an expert witness, as he did not demonstrate how the expert's testimony would have been favorable or affected the trial's outcome. The court concluded that Lindeman's conclusory allegations were insufficient to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lindeman v. State" on Justia Law

The City of Fargo, a home rule municipality, adopted zoning ordinances prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition as home occupations and in non-farm commercial use zoned districts. In 2023, the North Dakota legislature passed House Bill 1340, amending N.D.C.C. §§ 40-05.1-06 and 62.1-01-03 to limit the authority of political subdivisions, including home rule cities, regarding firearms and ammunition. Fargo filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 1340 and seeking a declaration that the amended statutes did not void its ordinances.The District Court of Cass County granted summary judgment in favor of the State, holding that H.B. 1340 did not violate the North Dakota Constitution and expressly preempted and voided Fargo’s zoning ordinances. Fargo appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that H.B. 1340 was a valid exercise of the legislature’s constitutional authority to define the powers of home rule cities. The court concluded that the amended statutes were constitutional as applied to Fargo’s home rule charter and ordinances. The court also determined that H.B. 1340 preempted and rendered void Fargo’s zoning ordinances prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition, as the legislature had expressly limited the authority of political subdivisions in this area. View "City of Fargo v. State" on Justia Law

Charles Werner was charged with DUI–.08% or greater–1st offense and simple assault, both class B misdemeanors. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the subsequent interview was an improper custodial interrogation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where the arresting officer testified, and bodycam footage was reviewed.The District Court of McHenry County denied Werner’s motion to suppress. Werner then entered a conditional guilty plea to the DUI charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The simple assault charge was dismissed. The court entered a judgment on the DUI charge, which was later amended to reflect the conditional nature of the plea.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Werner’s vehicle based on the information provided by the victim and the circumstances observed by the officers. The court also found that Werner was not subject to an unlawful custodial interrogation, as he was not formally arrested, was told he was not under arrest, and was not restrained or isolated during the questioning. The court held that the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Werner" on Justia Law

Mitchell S. Sanderson filed a civil lawsuit against Judge Kari Agotness, seeking $200 million in damages and demanding an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by Agotness. Sanderson served the summons and complaint on Agotness and the Office of Attorney General. Agotness responded with a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and requested attorney’s fees. Sanderson did not respond to these motions. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, found Sanderson’s claims frivolous, and awarded attorney’s fees to Agotness. Sanderson then filed a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which was denied. Sanderson appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Sanderson argued that the district court erred in dismissing his claims based on judicial immunity, asserting that Agotness lacked personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo and found that Sanderson’s complaint lacked factual context and support, making it frivolous. The court held that judicial immunity protected Agotness from civil claims arising from her judicial duties, as she acted within her jurisdiction.The Supreme Court also reviewed the award of attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard and found no error in the district court’s decision. However, the amount awarded was incorrect due to a computational error. The Supreme Court modified the attorney’s fees from $3,213.80 to $2,787.45.Sanderson’s appeal also included a challenge to the denial of his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court declined to consider this issue further, as Sanderson failed to adequately brief it.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Sanderson’s case based on judicial immunity, modified the attorney’s fees awarded, and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Sanderson v. Agotness" on Justia Law

In 2018, Kevin Hoff pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Since his conviction, Hoff has filed three applications for postconviction relief. His first application, filed in May 2020, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The amended application, which abandoned the newly discovered evidence claim, was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Hoff's second application, filed in December 2021, claimed his trial counsel incorrectly advised him about the defense of others. The State moved to dismiss this application as time-barred and for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motions, and Hoff did not appeal.Hoff's third application claimed a mental disease excepted him from the two-year limitation, his trial counsel incorrectly advised him, and newly discovered evidence existed. He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order denying his second application. The district court consolidated the Rule 60(b) motion with the third application and held an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on the two-year limitation, granted the State's motion for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process, denied Hoff's application, and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the sequestration order did not apply to all witnesses and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness to testify. The court also held that Hoff's third application for postconviction relief was precluded by the two-year limitation and that Hoff did not demonstrate he met the exception for a physical disability or mental disease. The court did not address the res judicata and misuse of process claims, as the application was already precluded by the two-year limitation. View "Hoff v. State" on Justia Law

Jennie Olson and Jonathan Olson were married on August 22, 2020. Two days before the wedding, Jonathan presented Jennie with a premarital agreement stipulating that in the event of a divorce, each party would retain ownership of their separate property. Jennie signed the agreement the same day. At the time, Jennie had a net worth of $386,917, while Jonathan had a net worth of $11,591,000. The couple separated in July 2022, and Jennie initiated divorce proceedings.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, bifurcated the trial, first addressing the validity of the premarital agreement. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable and determined that the parties had no marital property. Jennie appealed, arguing the district court erred in its findings and abused its discretion in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify and in not admitting a text message as evidence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding the premarital agreement valid and enforceable. The court found that Jennie had access to independent legal representation, received adequate financial disclosure, voluntarily consented to the agreement, and that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the rebuttal witness to testify or in refusing to admit the text message as evidence.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied both parties' requests for attorney’s fees and costs, citing the premarital agreement's provision that each party is responsible for their own legal expenses. View "Olson v. Olson" on Justia Law

James Lowe appealed a decision by Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) regarding the denial of his request for continued opioid medication exceeding 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) daily. Lowe argued that WSI abused its discretion in denying his request for approval of the medication.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, reviewed the case and affirmed WSI's decision. The court found that WSI had not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in its decision-making process. The court also noted that Lowe's medical provider had not provided sufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for exceeding the 90 MME limit, as required by the new law effective July 1, 2022.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that WSI had conducted a full review of Lowe's request and had properly applied the guidelines governing long-term opioid pain management. The court concluded that WSI did not abuse its discretion in denying Lowe's request for continued opioid medication in excess of 90 MME daily. The court affirmed the district court judgment affirming the managed care binding dispute resolution decision by WSI. View "Lowe v. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law