Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondents-Appellants Darlene Hankison, Michael Flick, Steven Flick, David Flick, landowners in Wells County, and Weckerly F.L.P., a landowner in Sheridan County, appealed a Wells County district court judgment and a Sheridan County district court order that denied their motions to dismiss and granted Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.'s petitions to enter their property to conduct testing and surveys. The Wells County district court held that for purposes of a petition to enter land for surveying and testing, Minnkota only needed to show it was in charge of a public use or it was in the category of persons entitled to seek eminent domain. The court determined Minnkota was in charge of a public use and also was entitled to seek eminent domain. The Sheridan County court held, under N.D.C.C. § 10-15-52, a foreign cooperative is entitled to all rights, exemptions, and privileges of a cooperative organized for the same purposes under the laws of this state when it is issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state. Minnkota was issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state, and it is organized to provide power to its members. Because North Dakota electric cooperatives have authority to use eminent domain, the court determined Minnkota also has the power to use eminent domain. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district courts did not err in concluding that Minnkota was entitled to seek the power of eminent domain under North Dakota law. View "Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jens Lee appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. He was stopped for speeding while riding his motorcycle. After failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary screening, Defendant was arrested and agreed to submit to an Intoxilyzer test. The in-car video showed that approximately four minutes later, while they sat in the patrol car waiting for assistance with the motorcycle, Lee twice told the arresting officer, "I hope you understand I've got to have Cash give me a good try." When the officer asked what he meant, Lee answered, "Cash Aaland," the name of a Fargo attorney. At the administrative hearing, the arresting officer testified Lee had stated that "he'd be getting a hold of Cash." The arresting officer admitted he understood "Cash" was a reference to Cash Aaland. After being transported to the police station, Lee made no further reference to an attorney before submitting to the Intoxilyzer test. The arresting officer did not provide Lee an opportunity to contact an attorney prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test. On appeal, Defendant contended the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the Intoxilyzer test results, claiming his statement to the arresting officer that "I've got to have Cash give me a good try" invoked his statutory right to consult with an attorney before submitting to the chemical test and triggered the officer's duty to provide a reasonable opportunity for Lee to do so. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion, and affirmed his conviction. View "North Dakota v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Cecil H. Bell appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision to revoke his driving privileges for one year. Petitioner argued he was denied his statutory right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. Finding no denial of rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision. View "Bell v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust appealed a judgment that dismissed the Trust's claim against Richard and Brenda Jorgenson for reformation of two warranty deeds. Because the parties' claims to quiet title in the disputed mineral acres were not fully adjudicated and no N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification appeared in the record, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature. View "Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Douglas Kooser appealed a district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred by denying his request to withdraw his "Alford" plea and by finding he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no abuse of discretion nor a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial. View "Kooser v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Mark Palmer appealed a district court's order that denied his motion for relief for post-conviction relief. In 2001, Petitioner was convicted of four counts of gross sexual imposition. He appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In February 2011, Petitioner applied for post-conviction relief, and an attorney was appointed to represent him. On March 1, 2011, the State responded to Petitioner's application and moved for summary dismissal. The district court denied Petitioner's application. His attorney moved on his behalf for relief from the order denying his post-conviction application, arguing Petitioner was entitled to relief from the order because of mistake or inadvertence. The district court denied the motion. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not explain its rationale for denying Petitioner's motion for relief. The order denying the motion stated, "The motion for relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal [sic] Procedure and dated May 23, 2011, is in all things SUMMARILY DENIED." The court provided no explanation for denying Palmer's motion. Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for an explanation of its decision. View "Palmer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Rodney Brossart appealed a default judgment entered against him in a collection action brought by Plaintiff-Appellee Raymond J. German, Ltd. for legal services allegedly rendered to him. On appeal, Appellant argued the district court erred in granting German a default judgment, and German failed to prove the existence of an attorney-client agreement between itself and Appellant, precluding the default. Upon review, the Supreme Court modified the default and affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in entering a default in favor of German, because Appellant "appeared" under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a) and German provided him with notice of the motion for a default judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 55(a)(3). Furthermore, the Court held that it was reasonable for the trial court to ask for written proof of the attorney-client relationship prior to entering the default judgment. View "Raymond J. German, Ltd. v. Brossart" on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Morin appealed a criminal judgment that was based upon his conditional plea of guilty to simple assault on a peace officer. Defendant pled guilty after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence. In 2010, Bismarck police officers responded to a domestic-disturbance call at the residence of Defendant and Christine Chase, Defendant’s girlfriend. At the suppression hearing, Chase and Officer Dustin Miller, one of the officers who responded, testified. Defendant moved to suppress evidence, alleging "[l]aw enforcement officers in this matter unlawfully entered the residence of Mr. Morin in violation of his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Defendant moved to suppress all "illegally obtained evidence seized" as a result of the entry and any statements he made after the entry. The State resisted Defendant’s motion. The district court held a hearing and denied Defendant’s motion, determining Chase consented to Officer Miller's entry of the home and exigent circumstances existed to allow Officer Miller to enter the home without a warrant. Based on the issues presented from the parties and the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court's findings. View "North Dakota v. Morin" on Justia Law

Defendant Christian Antonio Alaniz, Jr., appealed an order deferring imposition of sentence entered after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because there was not probable cause to justify the search of his person and the exception to the probable cause requirement for warrantless searches by school officials did not apply. Troy Vanyo was a police officer with the Grand Forks Police Department and was assigned to work as a school resource officer at a high school in Grand Forks. Vanyo had received information about possible drug use involving students in an area approximately a block and a half from the high school. One of the students was later identified as Defendant. The students walked to a town square area and Vanyo followed in his patrol car. Vanyo testified the students were seated when they saw him, stood up, and quickly walked toward a stage area in the town square. Later, Vanyo observed Defendant waiting to talk to the attendance secretary and he informed the school principal that Defendant was the other individual he observed in the town square and suspected was involved in drug activity. The principal took Defendant into a detention room and Vanyo followed them. Vanyo testified the principal questioned Defendant, Vanyo testified he told Defendant something like "if you have anything on you, you need to lay it on the table now." Defendant emptied his pockets, which contained a glass pipe and synthetic marijuana. In moving to suppress the evidence, Defendant argued the police failed to advise him of his rights under "Miranda v. Arizona," (384 U.S. 436 (1966)), there was not probable cause justifying the search of his person, and the exception to the probable cause requirement for searches by school officials did not apply. The district court denied the motion, ruling the reasonableness standard for searches by school officials applied and the search was reasonable. Defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved his right to appeal the court's denial of his suppression motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of Defendant's age, gender, and nature of the suspicion. View "North Dakota v. Alaniz" on Justia Law

Petitioner Paul Schock appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an administrative order suspending his driver's license for 180 days for driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding "a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded Schock provided a breath sample within two hours of driving a motor vehicle." The Court declined to grant his request for attorney's fees and costs. View "Schock v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law