Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Murphy appeaed a judgment that summarily dismissed his application for postconviction relief. Murphy argued that he should have received postconviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the factual basis upon which he pled guilty was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Finding no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Murphy's application for postconviction relief.View "Murphy v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Amanda Kulbacki appealed a district court judgment awarding her a divorce from Nicholas Michael and granting Michael's mother grandparent visitation. Kulbacki argued: (1) the district court erred in awarding grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C.; (2) that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., violated the United States and North Dakota Constitutions; (3) that the district court erred in including a provision that a future termination of Michael's parental rights would not impact his mother's visitation rights; and (4) that the district court erred in denying Kulbacki's motion for attorney fees as a victim of domestic violence contemplated in section 14-09-29(4), N.D.C.C. Upon review of the facts of the underlying case, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's determination that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., was constitutional and that grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., would not automatically end upon termination of Michael's parental rights. The Court further determined the district court unconstitutionally placed the burden on Kulbacki to show grandparent visitation was not in the child's best interests and made a legal error in determining attorney fees by impermissibly considering Kulbacki's return to Michael after she experienced domestic abuse at his hands. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Kulbacki v. Michael" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Bosworth appeals from an order evicting him from land. In August 2013, Vlad Gasic commenced this action against several defendants, including Bosworth, Blake Bosworth, Catherine Fletcher, Matthew Fletcher, and James Legg, seeking an order requiring the defendants to vacate land in Epping, or requiring the sheriff to evict the defendants from the premises. Gasic's complaint asserted that he was the record title owner of the land, that defendants were unauthorized tenants, that defendants were using the premises in an unauthorized manner and not paying their fair share of utilities and garbage removal, and that Gasic had demanded the defendants vacate the premises immediately, but they refused to do so. Gasic also alleged he had served a notice of intent to evict under state law. The defendants answered the complaint and counterclaimed. After a hearing, the district court entered an "order for eviction" requiring the defendants and all occupants to vacate the premises on or before September 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, the defendants moved to stay the eviction and requested a hearing, in addition to filing a notice of appeal. The district court entered a "stay of eviction" on September 16, 2013. Only Mark Bosworth filed a brief in this appeal. Bosworth raised multiple issues on appeal, including that Gasic did not own the land and had no legal authority to file this case, that the three-day notice required under state law was deficient, that Gasic never posted nor served by legal process the three-day notice required, and that the defendants have not been afforded due process. The Supreme Court found that neither the district court's order of eviction, nor the court's stay of eviction, provided any specific findings regarding these issues. Moreover, the Court concluded that defendants' appeal of the order for eviction was not an appeal from a final order or judgment, and therefore the Court dismissed the appeal.View "Gasic v. Bosworth" on Justia Law

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, on behalf of the State, appealed, and the National Audubon Society cross-appealed from a district court judgment dismissing the Attorney General's corporate farming enforcement action against Audubon and upholding the constitutionality of North Dakota's Corporate Farming Law, N.D.C.C. ch. 10-06.1. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the equitable defense of laches barred the State's divestiture claim. The Court declined to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law because the affirmative defense of laches provided an alternative basis upon which the case may be disposed.View "Stenehjem, ex rel. v. National Audubon Society, Inc." on Justia Law

Todd Zeller appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture or deliver, and possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver. Upon review of Zeller's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the search warrant's provision providing for a nighttime search was not supported by probable cause. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Zeller's motion to suppress, and to allow Zeller to withdraw his guilty pleas.View "North Dakota v. Zeller" on Justia Law

Robert Hoff appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. The district court found by clear and convincing evidence Hoff remained a sexually dangerous individual. Hoff argued the district court erred in determining that he had a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction, that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had difficulty controlling his behavior. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court made insufficient findings of fact on whether Hoff had difficulty controlling his behavior.View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

Randy Holkesvig appealed district court orders denying him leave of court to file post-judgment motions, denying his motion to vacate or void judgment, and ordering the Grand Forks County Clerk of Court not to accept any further pleadings of any kind from him in this case, other than a notice of appeal. After Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking in 2008, Holkesvig engaged in extensive litigation against various parties, including unsuccessfully suing the complaining witness, two prosecutors, and a deputy sheriff, and alleging wrongdoing in the criminal investigation and prosecution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Holkesvig v. Grove" on Justia Law

On October 13, 2010, Fargo law enforcement officers conducted a controlled drug buy in which they had a confidential informant arrange to buy methamphetamine from M.B., an unwitting go-between. M.B. was given $500 for the purchase. Officers on the scene saw her enter a black Nissan. M.B. returned to the detective's vehicle with the methamphetamine about seven minutes later. Another officer at the scene radioed his observations to other officers in the surveillance team and described the black Nissan. The black Nissan was ultimately pulled over on a traffic violation. That stop resulted in defendant Arthur Ostby being arrested. Defendant appealed after a jury convicted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court concluded, after review of defendant's arguments on appeal, the district court did not err in denying defendant's suppression motion. Furthermore, defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's failure to preserve evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. View "North Dakota v. Ostby" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Fred Hector appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his action against the City of Fargo for claims involving special assessments against his land. He argued the district court erred in granting Fargo summary judgment, because N.D.C.C. 40-26-07 authorized his action to judicially establish Fargo's special assessments as void to the extent the assessments exceeded Fargo's actual costs of improvements, and his claims were not barred by administrative res judicata. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded N.D.C.C. sections 40-26-01 and 40-26-07 authorized a court to review issues about a municipality's special assessments in the context of the adequate legal remedy of an appeal. Furthermore, the issues Hector raised in this action were res judicata. View "Hector v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Erling "Curly" Haugland appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his action against the City of Bismarck for declaratory relief involving Bismarck's implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund renewal projects in its renewal area. Haugland argued Bismarck failed to establish as a matter of law that it complied with the procedural requirements of N.D.C.C. 40-58-06 for substantially modifying its urban renewal plan in 1994. On remand, the district court decided an appropriate 1994 resolution existed to add six city blocks to the renewal area and authorized renewal projects in the renewal area were pending in January 2011. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court affirmed that portion of the summary judgment concerning Bismarck's urban renewal plan including pending authorized projects for the existing renewal area when the district court decided the case in January 2011. However, the Court reversed and remanded summary judgment with respect to approval of the 1994 plan, finding no disputed issues of material fact existed regarding approval.View "Haugland v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law