Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In April 2013, Randy Holkesvig petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against a business, Dakota Spas. Holkesvig's petition essentially alleged that after buying a hot tub cover from Dakota Spas: employees "order[ed] the wrong color of a hot tub cover" and "refus[ed] to send [him] receipts in a timely fashion;" a Dakota Spas individual "yelled" at him, he was told he needed a credit card receipt even though he claimed he was never given one; Dakota Spas "harassed" him by failing to give him an immediate credit back on his credit card and by requiring him to order a new hot tub cover to correct their alleged error; and Dakota Spas was dishonest with him and initiated unwanted telephone calls and sent unsolicited mail to him. Holkesvig appealed the district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of his petition and his request for an "oral hearing." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a disorderly conduct restraining order cannot be issued against a business, only natural persons. View "Holkesvig v. Dakota Spas" on Justia Law

Michael Lee Broadwell was found guilty of burglary, terrorizing, making a false report, giving false information or report to law enforcement officers, simple assault, and disorderly conduct. He appealed, but the appeal was dismissed pursuant to a motion by Broadwell's attorney. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Broadwell argued the district court erred in denying his application for postconviction relief. Because Broadwell did not establish that he was prejudiced by the conduct which he alleged constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Broadwell v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Bernice Gustafson, as personal representative of the estate of Leonard, Brian, and Michael Gustafson, initiated an action to quiet title to certain mineral interests located in Burke County in October 2011 by service by publication in the Burke County Tribune. Gustafson ultimately applied for default judgment to grant quiet title. After a hearing, the district court found that notice and the summons had been served upon the defendants in the action, that more than 21 days had elapsed since service, that no answer or other proper response was received on behalf of the defendants, and that each of the defendants was wholly in default. The court entered default judgment. Burton Imboden, trustee of the Evans Family Trust, in an affidavit in support of his motion to vacate the default judgment, stated that after he received the summons and complaint, he called the office of Gustafson's attorney, to ask about the complaint and to inform her that he was opposed to what she was trying to accomplish with the complaint. He stated he left a voice message requesting that the attorney return his call, but he never received a call back. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, because a message left for the opposing attorney on an answering machine was not an appearance entitling Imboden to notice before entry of the default judgment. View "Gustafson v. Gustafson" on Justia Law

The State appealed a trial court's order granting Matthew Nguyen's motion to suppress evidence. Nguyen was prosecuted for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of a drug-sniffing dog in a secure apartment hallway did not violate Nguyen's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Several landowners whose land abuts navigable waters appealed the grant of summary judgments in favor of the State. The judgment held that the State owned the mineral interests under the land in the shore zone. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that indeed the State owned the mineral interests under the shore zone of navigable waters since becoming a State in 1889 under the equal footing doctrine, and that N.D. Const. art. X, sec. 18, precludes construing the language now codified in N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's mineral interests under the shore zone to the upland owners. "If the chain of title reflects the State granted its equal footing interests to upland owners, those upland owners take to the low watermark, subject to the public trust doctrine and except where the deed provides otherwise. If the State is not in the chain of title for the upland owner's property, the anti-gift clause precludes construing N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's equal footing interests to upland owners." View "Reep v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to hold Kayla Rath in contempt and denying his request that the district court judge recuse himself from the case. The parties were divorced in January 2013 and Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility for the couple's two minor children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time to occur at the Family Safety Center while he was undergoing a domestic violence offender treatment program and a psychological evaluation, after which he could move for review of his parenting time schedule. A "no contact" order was in place during the divorce proceedings. Less than two months after entry of the divorce judgment, Mark brought a motion for an order to show cause why Kayla should not be held in contempt for violating provisions of the divorce judgment. Mark submitted two affidavits claiming Kayla violated various parenting provisions in the judgment. Kayla denied the allegations. Toward the end of the hearing, Mark requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. The court denied the contempt motion, finding Kayla "did not intentionally disobey the terms of the Judgment and . . . her conduct did not constitute contempt." The court also denied the request for recusal, reasoning Mark "stated no specific instances or evidence to support his claim of lack of impartiality." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Tydise Peltier appealed an amended criminal judgment of conviction and a district court judgment dismissing in part his application for post-conviction relief and amending the criminal judgment and sentence in his case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err when it amended the judgment of conviction and resentenced Peltier. Furthermore, the Court held that Peltier's probationary sentence on the failure-to-register charge was appropriately categorized as mandatory. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court judgments. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Gary Houim appealed an order denying his motion to modify residential responsibility for a child he had with Clara Ann Thompson (f/k/a Engh). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Houim's affidavit and supporting documents established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Morton County Social Service Board v. Houim" on Justia Law

Billy Joe Kinsella appealed a district court judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2010, a jury convicted Kinsella of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, S.B. Evidence at the trial included testimony from the investigating officer, the sexual assault nurse examiner ("SANE"), North Dakota State Crime Laboratory analysts, and DNA evidence taken from bed sheets located in the Kinsella residence. One of the crime laboratory analysts testified the bed sheet tested positive for semen and that DNA analysis revealed the semen matched Kinsella's DNA profile. S.B. testified she did not remember the sexual assault or the sexual assault examination conducted by the SANE nurse. Kinsella appealed his conviction to this Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. In his application for post-conviction relief, Kinsella argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding that Kinsella failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Kinsella v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A series of burglaries occurred over several months in Bismarck involving more than $65,000 in stolen property and property damage. D.O. is a juvenile thought to be involved with the crimes. While investigating D.O.'s involvement, Detective Matthew Fullerton performed a probation search of D.O.'s residence, obtained information from a tipster and a confidential informant, searched publicly available information on D.O.'s Facebook page and performed a "cell tower dump" showing cell phone activity in the area of the burglaries at the time they occurred. D.O. appealed the juvenile court's order granting the State's motion to transfer D.O.'s case to the district court and denying D.O.'s suppression motion. D.O. argued law enforcement offered false or misleading testimony in support of the search warrant, that insufficient probable cause existed to justify the search warrant's issuance, that the juvenile court relied on out-of-court statements in violation of his statutory right to confrontation and that his case was inappropriately transferred to the district court. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of D.O." on Justia Law