Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dawn Kirby appealed a district court order that denied her motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kirby made a prima facie case for modification, and accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "Sweeney v. Kirby" on Justia Law

Wendell Lund appealed a district court order dismissing his action against his mother Betty Lund for lack of personal jurisdiction. Wendell is the son of Orville and Betty Lund. Orville and Betty Lund owned real property in Bottineau County. Wendell claimed that in 1985 he entered into an implied contract with his parents whereby he agreed to provide certain labor and supplies to maintain the real property and to pay half of the real estate taxes, and that in exchange his parents agreed to convey the property to him. In 1991, Orville and Betty signed a deed purporting to convey their interest in the property to Orville and Wendell. When Orville and Betty divorced in 2010, the trial court found the 1991 deed was not a legitimate transaction, but rather had been an attempt to deprive Betty of her interest in the property and her homestead rights. The court included the entire value of the real property in the marital estate and awarded it to Orville. Betty received other offsetting property, and each party ultimately received approximately one-half of the marital estate. Betty Lund moved to Arizona in 2010. Since then, she held an Arizona driver's license, registered her vehicle in Arizona and where she registered to vote. In 2011, Wendell brought this action against his parents alleging they failed to comply with the 1985 implied contract. He sought damages and transfer of the real property to him. Wendell claimed that Betty could not be located for service of process, so service was made by publication. Betty entered a special appearance through her attorney and moved to dismiss the action against her, arguing she was a permanent resident of Arizona and the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The district court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty and subsequently dismissed Wendell's claims against both of his parents, to which Wendell appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Betty Lund resided in North Dakota, owned real property, and allegedly entered into a contract regarding her property in North Dakota. Those contacts were sufficient under Rule 4(b)(2) to assert personal jurisdiction over her for the transactions related to those activities, and she was not immune from suit because she left. The Court concluded the district court erred in concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction over Betty Lund. View "Lund v. Lund" on Justia Law

B.N. appealed juvenile court orders terminating his parental rights to J.N. and J.N. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the juvenile court failed to make a required finding of fact and the court's findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision. View "Interest of J.N." on Justia Law

K.H. appealed a juvenile court permanency order extending placement of his daughter, T.H., in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services until June 1, 2012. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed because the hearing to extend the permanency order was not held before the prior permanency order expired as required under N.D.C.C. section 27-20-36. View "Interest of T.H." on Justia Law

M.D. appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. M.D. argued the court's finding that he remain a sexually dangerous individual was clearly erroneous and the court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for a continuance. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the district court's discretion and affirmed its decision. View "Matter of M.D." on Justia Law

n 2001, Defendant Mark Palmer was convicted of four counts of gross sexual imposition. Defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In 2011, Defendant appealed a district court order that denied his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from an order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Palmer's motion. View "Palmer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota, through Williams County Assistant State's Attorney Nathan Kirke Madden, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate a pretrial order requiring the State to produce the Director of the State Crime Laboratory at trial in the prosecution of James Christianson for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The State argued the district court misinterpreted N.D.R.Ev. 707 to require the State to produce the Director for Christianson's criminal trial. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order, concluding that the record did not establish that the Director made any testimonial statements in an analytical report assessing Christianson's blood-alcohol content. View "North Dakota, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Tresenriter appealed criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict found him guilty of 22 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, one count of terrorizing, one count of child endangerment, and one count of simple assault. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Tresenriter failed to properly preserve issues for appeal when he did not timely object to admission of results of a buccal swab DNA test and did not move to consolidate the multiple conspiracy charges into a single conspiracy count. View "North Dakota v. Tresenriter" on Justia Law

Defendant Esteban Dominguez was charged with attempted murder and terrorizing after he allegedly threatened David Nelson with a .22 caliber rifle. When Nelson began to run away, Dominguez allegedly shot at Nelson four times. Defendant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and request a new trial after he was found guilty of attempted murder and terrorizing. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Daniel Herzig appealed a jury verdict which found him guilty of criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. Under "North Dakota v. Meyer," (361 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1985)), the Supreme Court concluded this dispute was ill-suited for a criminal action and instead should have been resolved in a civil action because there existed a legitimate dispute as to whether the area upon which Mr. Herzig was alleged to have trespassed was a public road by prescription under N.D.C.C. 24-07-01. Under "Meyer," the Court reversed the judgment and remand to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Herzig" on Justia Law