Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant-Appellant J.G. appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. Concluding the district court did not err in finding J.G. engaged in sexually predatory conduct and the State established by clear and convincing evidence that J.G. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of J.G." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Bradley Davis appealed a district court order dismissing his motions for leave to depose witnesses and summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application. Because he produced no competent evidence to support his motion to depose Angela Cook, and the evidence he sought to obtain by deposing Graylan Bobo and Angela Cook would not have likely resulted in an acquittal, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny his motions for leave to depose Cook and Bobo. The district court did not err by summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application because no showing has been made that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Darin Dahl appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bifurcated trial under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04.1-16 and for failing to request the verdict form reflect the possibility of a finding of "not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility." Finding that Petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different if his counsel had requested a bifurcated trial, and that his claim to ineffective assistance of counsel was frivolous and without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dahl v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

SM Energy Company appealed a summary judgment declaring that A.G. Golden and other plaintiffs were entitled to a four percent overriding royalty interest in leases and lands covered by a 1970 letter agreement and ordering SM to pay amounts due to Golden and the other plaintiffs for these interests, and an order denying SM's motion to amend or for relief from the judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that SM through its predecessors in interest, expressly assumed an "area of mutual interest" clause in the 1970 letter agreement and in expanding the judgment to include unpled and unlitigated properties within the area of mutual interest. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court correctly ruled as a matter of law that SM owed Golden and the other plaintiffs retroactive royalty payments on production from a certain well located on the subject property. View "Golden v. SM Energy Company" on Justia Law

The State appealed and Ernest Coppage cross-appealed a district court judgment granting Coppage's application for post-conviction relief, vacating his attempted murder conviction, and ordering a new trial. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in finding Coppage received ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in granting his application for post-conviction relief. Coppage argued the court's decision on his ineffective assistance claim should be affirmed but the court erred by failing to rule on his other claims for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly started its analysis of the issues by deciding whether Coppage's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction. However, the court did not properly apply the law to determine whether Coppage was prejudiced and the court failed to decide whether post-conviction counsel was also ineffective. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.M. appealed an order denying his petition for discharge as a sexually dangerous individual. He contended on appeal that the district court erred in not striking the testimony and report of the State's expert because she testified she had not reviewed his entire file at the State Hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.M.'s motion to strike the expert's testimony and report and did not clearly err in deciding J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of J.M." on Justia Law