Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment that reversed its administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Jay Olson's driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded reasonable minds could have concluded the hearing officer's finding that Olson did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke during the twenty minutes before the Intoxilyzer test was supported by the weight of the evidence in the record. The Court therefore reversed the district court's judgment which found differently, and reinstated the administrative suspension of Olson's driving privileges. View "Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

In early 2013, S.R.B.'s father filed a petition for his involuntary commitment. The petition alleged S.R.B. was mentally ill and there was a reasonable expectation of a serious risk of harm if left untreated. The petition alleged that S.R.B. called a nearby school looking for his daughter, wife, and lover, of which he had none. The petition also alleged S.R.B.'s neighbor saw S.R.B. "walking around his house this morning with nothing on but his underwear shorts." The father requested emergency treatment, noting S.R.B. was not taking his medication. S.R.B. appealed the trial court's order for hospitalization and treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for ninety days. The Supreme Court held the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the trial court's order, and remanded for expedited findings. On remand, the trial court entered additional findings and issued an amended order. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that supported the order for hospitalization and treatment. View "Interest of S.R.B." on Justia Law

Carol Johnson appealed the denial of her motions for summary judgment, to amend her complaint, and the grant of the defendants' summary judgment motions for various claims related to her involuntary hospitalization. Johnson also appealed an order denying her motion for reconsideration and an order denying her objections to the district court's award of costs and disbursements to the defendants. In 2009, Johnson, a formerly licensed attorney in California appearing pro se, sued Dr. Natalya Bronson, Registered Nurse B.R. Clark, Prairie St. John's Hospital, John Does 1-100, Jane Does 1-100 (collectively "Medical Defendants"), and Attorney Steven Mottinger after being involuntarily hospitalized. Her claims against the Medical Defendants essentially asserted that because "[a]t all material times, [she] was without mental defect or disease of any kind whatsoever," the Medical Defendants had no authority to involuntarily commit her. Johnson's claims against Mottinger asserted that he committed legal malpractice in his representation of Johnson and was also liable for false imprisonment and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Johnson alleged that, as a result of Mottinger and the Medical Defendants' conduct, she was subjected to numerous electronic hazards and suffered "severe and serious injuries and monetary damages." Johnson sought compensatory damages for costs related to medical care and treatment, pain and suffering, and the "loss of the enjoyment of life." Johnson sought damages in excess of $10,000,000 for lost wages and reduced earning capacity, asserting her ability to reenter the legal profession had been destroyed due to the stigma of being civilly committed. Finding no reason to overturn the trial court's decisions to deny Johnson's motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Johnson v. Bronson" on Justia Law

Edward Waslaski, Jr. appealed a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of his post-conviction relief application. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Waslaski's motion. View "Waslaski v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Miguel Humberto Medina Romero was convicted by jury of murder, unlawful possession/manufacture of a controlled substance (marijuana), and unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver. Upon review of Romero’s arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Romero's motion to allow the jury to view the crime scene, in instructing the jury on self-defense, and in denying Romero's motion under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Furthermore, the Court held that Romero failed to establish reversible error regarding inaudible words in the transcript of the jury selection. View "North Dakota v. Romero" on Justia Law

After a shooting incident in a Fargo movie theater parking lot, the State charged Felipe Estrada with attempted murder for shooting Juan Garza in an attempt to cause his death. Estrada was also charged with aggravated assault for striking Charles Roskom on the head with a handgun and fracturing his skull and with two counts of reckless endangerment for shooting in the direction of DeShawn Stodola as she ran away and for shooting toward members of the public inside the movie theater. Estrada appealed his convictions on two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of reckless endangerment. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdicts, and affirmed them. View "North Dakota v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Michael Jassek appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the binding dispute resolution decision of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") that denied payment for a myoelectric prosthesis. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore vacated the judgment. Jassek contended that because WSI failed to explain its reasons for disregarding the medical evidence favorable to Jassek, its binding dispute resolution decision was arbitrary, and that WSI's binding dispute resolution procedure violated his right to due process because it failed to provide a formal hearing. The language of N.D.C.C. 65-02-20 unambiguously provides that "[a] dispute resolution decision under this section requested by a medical provider concerning . . . a request for . . . treatment is not reviewable by any court." The statute based appealability on the identity of the party who requests binding dispute resolution, not on who appeals the binding dispute resolution decision. Jassek’s orthotist was a "medical provider," and this dispute concernd "a request for diagnostic tests or treatment," specifically the determination of an appropriate prosthetic device. Accordingly, WSI's decision on the medical provider’s request for binding dispute resolution was not reviewable by the district court, the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction, and the judgment affirming WSI's decision was void. View "Jassek v. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law

S.R.B. appealed the trial court's order for hospitalization and treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for ninety days and its order requiring use of prescribed medication. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded insufficient findings appeared in the record to support the trial court's orders. The case was remanded with instructions for expedited entry of findings for the order for hospitalization and treatment, and the Court reversed the order requiring use of prescribed medication. View "Interest of S.R.B." on Justia Law

Robert R. Hoff appealed an order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion by not independently making an individualized determination on the record whether it was necessary to restrain Hoff during the hearing, and its failure to do so was not harmless error. View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

William Florian Wosick appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Wosick argued the district court abused its discretion by admitting a blood analysis report and obvious error occurred because of lack of notice of the charge against him and the improper admission of testimony. Finding that Wosick did not demonstrate that admission of the blood test report constituted a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment against him. View "City of Grafton v. Wosick" on Justia Law