Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The North Dakota Department of Human Services appealed a district court order reversing and remanding the Department's order decreasing Plaintiff-Appellee Penne Nienow's monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits. The County determined Nienow received income from a prior mineral rights lease and, therefore, the 2011 payment was a recurring lump-sum payment. The County reduced Nienow's SNAP benefits to $16 per month. Nienow filed a request for hearing to the Department, and an evidentiary hearing was held. The County's representative testified Nienow stated that she leased the mineral rights and received income from the lease every five years and that she had leased the rights at least once before. After the hearing, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") concluded the County correctly determined Nienow's income and properly reduced her SNAP benefits. The Department adopted the ALJ's findings and conclusions. Nienow appealed the Department's order to the district court. The district court reversed and remanded, concluding Nienow's payment was a mineral leasing bonus, a nonrecurring lump-sum payment, and should not have been considered as income in determining Nienow's eligibility. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the district court order and reinstated the Department's final order reducing Nienow's SNAP benefits. View "Nienow v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Thomas Doppler appealed a district court judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia following a jury trial. Doppler argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Doppler's prior felony convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding Doppler's substantial rights were affected by the improper admission of Doppler's prior convictions. View "North Dakota v. Doppler" on Justia Law

The State appealed trial court orders dismissing three separate criminal complaints of endangerment of a child against Defendants Alexis Stegall, Chelsea Hettich, and Kimberlie Lamon. In each case, defendants gave birth to children who tested positive for methamphetamine in their systems. The dispositive issue before the Supreme Court was whether the offense of endangerment of a child applied when a pregnant woman ingests a controlled substance that continues to affect the child postpartum (specifically, the child tests positive for a controlled substance following birth). Under the Court's statutory interpretation of N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-22.2 and its holding in "Geiser," the Court held that a pregnant woman is not criminally liable for endangerment of a child for prenatal conduct that ultimately harms a child born alive. "If we limited the scope of Geiser to only unborn children who died in utero, but held a pregnant woman liable if the child ultimately lives and tests positive for a controlled substance postpartum, we would be criminalizing a nonfatal injury while not criminalizing conduct resulting in a fatal injury. Such an interpretation would create an absurd result. It would criminalize conduct that is not a crime at the time the conduct occurs, is not a crime if the unborn child dies in utero, but is a crime only by virtue of its effect on the child born alive." Accordingly the Court affirmed the trial courts' orders dismissing the criminal complaints. View "North Dakota v. Stegall" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Edward Waslaski appealed a district court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief on charges he pled guilty to 24 years ago. Petitioner pled guilty to 39 counts of burglary under a plea agreement. On appeal, he argued he was prejudiced because his counsel was unable to review a transcript or file and he should be able to use his recitation of fact in the absence of a transcript. He also argued his original guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Waslaski v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Lindsey Hysjulien appealed a grant of summary judgment which dismissed her claims for employment discrimination and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Hill Top Home of Comfort, Inc. and Greg Armitage. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the running of the statutes of limitations for her state and federal employment discrimination claims and regarding her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court erred in granting summary judgment on these claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort" on Justia Law

Respondent-Appellant Kelly Kroshus appealed a district court order granting Petitioner-Appellee Andrea Hanisch a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against him. The parties were never married but dated until Fall, 2011. They had one child together. After unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, Hanisch petitioned the district court for the restraining order after he sent her a series of allegedly harassing text messages, some of which contained sexually explicit pictures of her, and threatened to post those pictures on a website. Kroshus essentially acknowledged that he sent the text messages described in Hanisch's petition for the restraining order, but testified that sending such messages and sexual pictures was a normal part of their relationship while they were dating. Kroshus argued that he and Hanisch would both often send pictures to each other and make derogatory comments toward each other, and that they did this to spice up their relationship, as a way of flirting. Kroshus contended that once he received the text message from her telling him to stop texting, he stopped. He also asserted that cell phone reception on his phone was limited and prevented him from receiving text messages from Hanisch until later in the day. Kroshus argued further that the facts of the case did not support a finding of disorderly conduct: the text messages to Hanisch took place during a relatively short period of time, that he had consumed a large amount of alcohol and thought they were still working on their relationship, and that the delay for him to stop texting her does not amount to an attempt to adversely affect her safety, security, or privacy. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the restraining order. View "Hanisch v. Kroshus" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court's judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner-Apellee Timothy Mees's driving privileges for ninety-one 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 the officer who administered the Intoxilyzer ascertained that Petitioner did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for twenty minutes prior to the Intoxilyzer test was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner's driving privileges. View "Mees v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Roland Riemers appealed a district court order that denied his petition for a writ to require the Secretary of State to remove the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor from the November 2012 general election ballot, or alternatively to place him on that ballot as the Libertarian party candidate. According to Riemers, both he and his running mate for lieutenant governor filed separate certificates of endorsement and statements of interests with the Secretary to place their names on the June 2012 primary ballot, but Richard Ames did not submit a signature page with his statement of interests. Accordingly, the Secretary placed Riemers' name on the primary ballot, but not that of his running mate Ames. Riemers received enough votes in the primary to qualify for placement on the general election ballot. The Secretary asked the Attorney General whether under North Dakota law, Riemers could be nominated for governor without an accompanying candidate for lieutenant governor. The Attorney General issued a written opinion ruling that Riemers was not nominated because the requirements for a joint ballot for governor and lieutenant governor were not satisfied. Riemers thereafter submitted sufficient signatures to the Secretary of State for certification on the November general election ballot as an independent candidate for governor, with Anthony Johns as his accompanying candidate for lieutenant governor. In September 2012, after filing matter in the district court and being informed a previous attempt to serve the petition on the Secretary of State by certified mail was insufficient under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2), Riemers personally served an Assistant Attorney General with the petition for a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition, a writ of quo warranto, and for preventive or declaratory relief. Riemers named the Secretary of State as the respondent and asked the district court to require the Secretary of State to remove the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor from the November general election ballot for failure to file a joint certificate of endorsement for the primary election. Riemers alternatively sought an order requiring the Secretary of State to place his name on the general election ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor with Anthony Johns as the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor. Riemers also sought an order directing the Secretary of State to stop discriminating against minor party and independent candidates. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Riemers failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to be certified for the general election ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for a writ to require the Secretary of State to certify his name for that ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor. View "Riemers v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed a district court judgment that affirmed Job Service of North Dakota's decision to deny them unemployment benefits. Upon review of the administrative record and the plain language of N.D.C.C. 52-06-02(4), the Supreme Court concluded that claimants were only disqualified from unemployment compensation for employee-initiated work stoppages due to labor disputes, not to locked out Claimants as in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case back to Job Service for further proceedings. View "Olson v. Job Service" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Morrow appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision that suspended his driving privileges for one year. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that N.D.C.C. 39-20-04 required an officer to specifically indicate his or her belief that the driver's body contained alcohol on the Report and Notice form, which he says was nowhere on the face of the form. The Department argued that formulating the opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol was a prerequisite to requesting an onsite screening test, and therefore checking "Refused onsite screening test" implied the officer formulated an opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arresting officer failed to indicate his belief that Plaintiff's body contained alcohol, thereby making the report and notice deficient. The Court reversed the district court's order affirming the administrative suspension of Plaintiff's driving privileges. View "Morrow v. Ziegler" on Justia Law