Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Northwest Landowners Association filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of North Dakota Senate Bill 2344, which related to subsurface pore space. The district court granted the Association’s cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding S.B. 2344 was unconstitutional under the state and federal takings clauses. The State and Continental Resources appealed the district court’s summary judgment order and amended judgment. On appeal, the State argued S.B. 2344 did not violate the takings clauses and did not constitute an unconstitutional gift, and that the district court misapplied N.D.R. Civ.P. 56 by failing to consider evidence submitted by the State. Continental Resources argued the court erred in analyzing the Association’s facial challenge, in determining pore space had value as a matter of law, and in denying Rule 56(f) discovery. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in invalidating the entirety of S.B. 2344. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed to the extent that it declared certain portions unconstitutional, but reversed to the extent it declared the remainder of the bill inseparable and invalid. View "Northwest Landowners Association v. State, et al." on Justia Law

Milford Netterville appealed the revocation of his probation, and his resentencing to two years’ imprisonment. In 2020, Netterville pled guilty to domestic violence, for which he was originally sentenced to 366 days’ imprisonment with credit for 99, and 18 months of supervised probation. In 2021, the State petitioned to revoke probation when Netterville failed to report to his probation officer in October and November 2021. He argued the district court entered an illegal order because the court failed to give him credit for time served and there was ambiguity in the court’s sentence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the revocation did not take into account the credit for time served. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with instructions for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Netterville" on Justia Law

Robert Bolinske appealed the dismissal of his claims against former Supreme Court Justice Dale Sandstrom and former District Court Judge Gail Hagerty (“State Defendants”) and awarding them attorney’s fees. In October 2016, Bolinske alleged in a press release that the State Defendants conspired to misfile or hide a petition for supervisory writ that he submitted in a prior case and thus tampered with public records. A few days after this press release, Rob Port published an article on his “Say Anything” blog regarding Bolinske’s press release. The article stated Port contacted Sandstrom and quoted Sandstrom as having said Bolinske’s press release was “bizarre and rather sad” and that “[a]lthough I’ve been aware of his mental health problems for years, I don’t recall ever having seen anything in his email before.” Three days after the article was published, Hagerty filed a grievance complaint against Bolinske, alleging he violated the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct. Based on the complaint, a disciplinary action was brought against Bolinske. The Inquiry Committee found Bolinske violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and issued him an admonition. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court affirmed, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding his procedural due process rights were not violated. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Bolinske’s complaint in part, concluding the district court properly dismissed Bolinske’s claims of procedural and substantive due process, civil conspiracy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, governmental bad faith, and tortious outrage. The Supreme Court reversed in part, concluding the district court erred by dismissing the defamation claim under the statute of limitations. The award of attorney’s fees was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Bolinske v. Sandstrom, et al." on Justia Law

John Bridges appealed district court orders and judgments granting the State’s motions for summary judgment and denying Bridges’ applications for postconviction relief as untimely, barred by misuse of process and res judicata, and for lack of genuine issues of material fact. Bridges was convicted following guilty pleas to murder and kidnapping in 2012 and attempted murder in 2013. He did not appeal either conviction. Bridges previously applied for postconviction relief. Bridges argues summary disposition of his applications was inappropriate and he was entitled to evidentiary hearings in each case. Finding no reversible error however, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court orders. View "Bridges v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Richard Anderson appealed an order denying his motion challenging the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and seeking modification of his probation conditions. He argued the probation condition restricting his internet access violated his constitutional rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Anderson’s as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of the statute was not ripe for review. View "North Dakota v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Edward Skorick appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick argued the district court’s factual findings were insufficient to legally conclude he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, Skorick contended because he did not receive negative behavioral acknowledgements over the review period, the State failed to meet its burden. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court made adequate findings to demonstrate Skorick had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The district court considered the testimony and evidence presented, including Skorick’s past and present conduct, in making its finding he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court noted Skorick’s history of negative behavior at the North Dakota State Hospital, including being oppositional to staff, cursing at staff, and calling staff stupid, to the point of having outside time cut short. The court found Skorick has threatened to commit an offense to get out of the State Hospital so he can return to the state penitentiary. The court stated these behaviors had occurred through October 2020, roughly one year before the hearing, but also indicated Skorick had engaged in inappropriate behavior in early 2021. The court found Skorick refused blood pressure medication in October 2020, and the record reflects Skorick has a history of refusing his medication, including a period in May 2021. The court found, although he did not recently receive negative behavioral write ups, Skorick had not implemented meaningful changes to interrupt his pattern of sexual offenses, Skorick continued to be impulsive and disregard the feelings of others, and Skorick’s behavioral issues remained unchanged and pervasive. Accordingly, the district court judgment was affirmed. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

David Mbulu appealed a district court order granting his application for post-conviction relief in part and denying it in part. In 2017, Mbulu was convicted of conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition, accomplice to gross sexual imposition, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. In 2018, Mbulu applied for post-conviction relief, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including that his trial counsel failed to subpoena and call his co-defendant, Jean-Michael Kisi, to testify during the trial. He claimed Kisi’s testimony would have resulted in a different outcome on the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition and accomplice to gross sexual imposition charges. Mbulu later moved to amend his application to include claims that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective because they failed to object to errors in the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charges, which allowed him to potentially be convicted of non-cognizable offenses After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err by denying Mbulu’s claims related to the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charge. However, the Court also concluded the court erred by summarily dismissing Mbulu’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to the failure to call his co-defendant as a witness during the criminal trial. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mbulu v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

LuAnn Erickson appealed a district court order granting her motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order under N.D.R.Ct. 7.2, but concluding that the tribal court restraining order was entitled to full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C. § 2265. Erickson argued that the court erred in granting full faith and credit to the tribal court order, because the tribal court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and the tribal court failed to provide her reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. Specifically she averred she was not properly served with the tribal court proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court record did not reflect Erickson was properly served with the tribal court proceedings under the Tribal Code. “Without proper service on Erickson, a hearing should not have been held, and a permanent protection order should not have issued.” Further, because the record demonstrated that Erickson was notified of the protection order proceedings after a permanent protection order was already entered, it follows that she was not afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 2265(b)(2). “Although Erickson responded to Baker’s attorney’s email attaching exhibits, this email was sent to Erickson the day before the hearing. Further, the email did not contain any information that would have informed Erickson a hearing would be conducted the following day. We conclude this is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements.” Therefore, the district court erred in according full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order. The district court order granting Erickson’s motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order was affirmed; however, insofar as the order granted full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order, judgment was reversed. View "Baker v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Aisha Piker appealed an amended criminal judgment ordering her to pay restitution. In February 2021, the State charged Piker with aggravated assault after allegedly stabbing her boyfriend in the hand. In June 2021, Piker entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct. The plea agreement provided that Piker would pay restitution as determined at a later date. The district court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment. Piker argued the district court erred in determining the restitution amount. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Piker" on Justia Law

In May 2021, the State filed a complaint charging Madison Dearinger with hindering law enforcement, a class C felony, and false information to law enforcement, a misdemeanor. Under the felony count, the State alleged Dearinger provided false information to a law enforcement officer before and after her father, Adam Dearinger, committed burglary. At the preliminary hearing, Dearinger moved to dismiss the felony charge of hindering law enforcement arguing she did not commit a felony because she did not know Adam Dearinger committed burglary at the time she lied to law enforcement. The district court found Dearinger knew of conduct constituting assault and violation of a protection order, but did not analyze whether she knew of conduct constituting burglary. The court determined the State failed to provide evidence for the felony enhancement and dismissed the hindering law enforcement charge. The State argued the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the felony charge of hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03. To this the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment. View "North Dakota v. Dearinger" on Justia Law