Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Anna Holmes appealed a district court order denying an evidentiary hearing on her motion for change of custody. Because the Supreme Court concluded Holmes met her burden of establishing a prima facie case justifying modification, it reversed the district court order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Wald v. Holmes" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed the district court's judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Dante Pesanti's driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded reasonable minds could have concluded the administrative hearing officer's finding that the arresting officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Pesanti had committed a violation is supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Pesanti's driving privileges. View "Pesanti v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Kevin Moore appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his third postconviction application, arguing his postconviction counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a brief in support of his postconviction application. Because the district court's summary dismissal of Moore's postconviction application was not erroneous, and because an ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim could not be established from the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Moore v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Ford Motor Credit Company appealed a district court order dismissing its action to renew a prior judgment. Ford sued Jeremy Halvorson in Minnesota on a contract matter. A judgment was entered in Minnesota against Halvorson. Halvorson moved from Minnesota to North Dakota, and the Minnesota judgment was registered in North Dakota in 2011. Halvorson did not pay the judgment. In 2013, Ford commenced this action to renew the judgment by personal service of the summons and complaint upon Halvorson. Halvorson did not respond to the summons and complaint, and Ford moved for entry of a default judgment against Halvorson. The district court, on its own motion, denied the motion for default judgment and instead dismissed Ford's complaint with prejudice, concluding that Ford's action was an improper duplicate action on the original debt and that the proper method to renew a judgment was by affidavit under the procedure provided in N.D.C.C. 28-20-21. Ford moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing its action, and the court entered an order affirming dismissal of the action. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing Ford's action on the judgment. Because there was no reason apparent on the record to deny the default judgment, the Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to enter a default judgment in favor of Ford in its action to renew the prior judgment. View "Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Halvorson" on Justia Law

Jason White appealed a district court order summarily affirming a municipal court judgment of conviction for disorderly conduct. White himself did not appear at a pre-trial hearing; his attorney did. Because the district court's summary affirmance was improper under N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(l), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On its face, the language of the summary affirmance subdivision was clear that it applied only when the defendant does not appear at a trial anew. Thus, summary affirmance is improper at hearings, such as dispositional conferences, which occur before the trial anew. View "City of Fargo v. White" on Justia Law

Gaylord Gene Evans appealed after a jury found him guilty of negligent homicide. Evans argued:(1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) that the district court permitted a lay witness to testify as an expert; (3) and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Upon careful analysis of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) defendant failed to show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted no reasonable inference of guilt; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an officer to testify because he did not give expert testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702 and his opinions were based on his personal experience, perception, and helpful to the jury's determination; (3) and, in light of the entire trial, it was clear the State's innocuous remark did not rise to the level of misconduct resulting in an unfair trial, or deprive Evans of his due process rights. View "North Dakota v. Evans" on Justia Law

Darl Hehn appealed an order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and from an order delaying a hearing on a subsequent petition for discharge until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. Upon review of the record of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding: (1) the district court did not err in finding that Hehn remained a sexually dangerous individual; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding Hehn was not entitled to another discharge hearing until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. View "Matter of Hehn" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") order, which affirmed WSI's order denying Ronald Kershaw's work injury claim. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in reversing the administrative law judge's order. The ALJ's decision was reinstated. View "Kershaw v. WSI" on Justia Law

Shealeen Hillerson, as "best friend" to T.D., a minor child, and T.D. appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their negligence lawsuit against the Missouri Valley Family YMCA for injuries T.D. suffered in a near-drowning accident while participating in a YMCA summer program. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the waiver of liability signed by T.D.'s mother was ambiguous, a question of fact existed as to the intent of the parties. Accordingly, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hillerson v. Bismarck Public Schools" on Justia Law

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law