Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The North Dakota Attorney General, representing the State Board of Higher Education, petitioned the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and enjoin Secretary of State from placing a referendum measure on the June 2012 primary election ballot regarding 2011 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 580 ("Senate Bill 2370"). The submission of the referendum measure to the Secretary of State reinstated N.D.C.C. 15-10-46, which requires the University of North Dakota (UND) to use the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo for its intercollegiate athletic teams. A majority of the Court would have exercised its discretionary original jurisdiction and consider the underlying constitutional issue about the Board's authority over UND; two members of the Court concluded this was not an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretionary original jurisdiction. As a result, there were not enough members willing to decide the constitutional issue. The Court therefore did not address the constitutional issue presented, and declined to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the referendum measure on the ballot. View "N.D. State Board of Higher Education v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

The City of Bismarck appealed from a district court order granting Defendant Daniel J. McCormick's post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal. In 2010, Defendant was charged with driving under the influence in violation of a Bismarck city ordinance. Defendant pled not guilty and requested a jury trial. The jury returned a guilty verdict. In 2011, Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal because the City did not introduce the driving-under-the-influence ordinance into evidence. The City resisted, asserting Defendant was not surprised by the ordinance because the ordinance is almost identical to the statute prohibiting driving under the influence in the North Dakota Century Code. The City further asserted Defendant's post-trial motion was untimely because it was a motion that should have been made before trial. The district court granted Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court held that without a statutory requirement it was not permitted to take judicial notice of a city ordinance unless a copy of the ordinance was received into evidence or the parties stipulated to its admission into evidence. The court also determined McCormick's motion was timely because he argued the city failed on its burden of proof at trial, which was a motion he could not have argued before trial. Concluding that the district court erred in granting Defendant's judgment of acquittal, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Bismarck v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Bruce Roger Mills, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, appealed a judgment that dismissed his claims against the City of Grand Forks to recover the amount of fines and fees collected in the past for noncriminal traffic violations by the City exceeding the amount the City could legally impose under state law. The City cross-appealed that judgment. In 2004, a Grand Forks police officer cited Plaintiff with careless driving. Under Grand Forks City Code, the maximum fine for violation of a noncriminal offense was $1,000 "in the discretion of the court." Plaintiff pled not guilty and proceeded to trial in municipal court. Plaintiff was found guilty. The municipal court imposed against Plaintiff "a fine in the amount of $151 with $0 suspended" and a hearing fee of $15. Plaintiff appealed to district court for a new trial; the court affirmed the conviction and the fine and fees totaling $166. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, but on December 1, 2004, the Court dismissed the appeal because the district court judgment was "not appealable under N.D.C.C. 39-06.1-03(5)." On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff brought a "Class Action Complaint for Restitution" in state district court seeking the amount of monies paid to Grand Forks exceeding the state law limits for fines for similar state offenses. Plaintiff asserted the excess fines, fees and charges were "involuntary and void." The City argued Plaintiff's claims were precluded by both res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the prior federal court action, and by res judicata because Mills failed to challenge the City's fine scheme in the 2004 state court proceedings. Because the district court correctly ruled Plaintiff's claims were thus barred by res judicata, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "Mills v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Gregorio Montano appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of possessing marijuana with the intent to deliver, and for delivery of marijuana. Defendant argued on appeal that the Supreme Court should reverse his convictions and remand his case for further proceedings because his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated when the district court failed to impose sanctions after the prosecutor made an inappropriate racial comment during rebuttal argument, and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding his argument without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Montano" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Allen Perius appealed a district court judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Appellee Nodak Mutual Insurance Company. In 2004, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver, Jacob Kessler. Plaintiff insured his vehicle with Nodak for basic no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist benefits. Nodak paid Plaintiff no-fault benefits as a result of the accident. Plaintiff did not seek further medical treatment until March 2005, when he saw a chiropractor. Plaintiff submitted the bills to Nodak for payment as no-fault benefits. After Plaintiff submitted to an independent medical examination, Nodak denied him payment for any medical treatment after December 31, 2004, concluding such treatment was unrelated to the accident. In 2007, Plaintiff brought suit against Kessler, alleging he negligently operated his motor vehicle and caused Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff also sued Nodak, alleging the company breached its insurance contract with him. Nodak denied liability, and asserted a cross-claim against Kessler regarding Plaintiff's uninsured motorist claim. Kessler did not answer the claims against him. In 2009, Nodak moved for summary judgment, arguing no competent, admissible evidence established his claimed injuries were caused by the accident. Plaintiff resisted the motion, and submitted the affidavits of two of his treatment providers who stated their belief that Plaintiff's injuries and treatment were due to the accident. The district court granted Nodak's motion for summary judgment, and this Court reversed and remanded, finding disputed issues of material fact existed. A trial was set on remand. Shortly after, Plaintiff sent Nodak amended responses to Nodak's interrogatories. Prior to trial, Nodak was informed of Plaintiff's intent to call a chiropractor, as an expert witness. Nodak filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the expert witness, alleging the expert was not properly disclosed.The district court granted Nodak's motion, but ordered the doctor would still be allowed to testify as a fact witness. The jury returned a verdict in Nodak's favor. The Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff did not properly disclose his witness and that the district court did not abuse its discretion excluding the expert's testimony as a discovery sanction. View "Perius v. Nodak Mutual Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant Edith Johnson appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order dismissing her claim for benefits from Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI). On appeal, Appellant argued the ALJ improperly set aside the parties' stipulated specification of issues and abused its discretion by dismissing her claim for benefits as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: the ALJ dismissed the action as a sanction after Appellant refused to comply with WSI's discovery request and the ALJ's decision granting WSI's motion to compel discovery. In deciding to dismiss Appellant's claim, the ALJ noted Appellant did not offer a defense for failing to comply with discovery and made it clear that she would rather have the matter dismissed than comply with discovery. The ALJ found Appellant almost invited dismissal by failing to respond to WSI's motion for sanctions, moving to reconsider the order granting WSI's motion to compel, and submitting two proposed orders with one granting the motion to reconsider and the other granting WSI's motion to dismiss. "While the ALJ should not be guided solely by the parties' requests and must exercise its own judgment in determining an appropriate sanction, under the facts of this case [the Court] conclude[d] the ALJ did not abuse its discretion in dismissing [Appellant's] claim." View "Johnson v. N.D. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Kara Lynn Langowski appeals from a summary judgment dismissing with prejudice her negligence action against Defendant-Appellee Charlene Altendorf. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged Defendant struck her with a vehicle while she attempted to cross a street in Minto, North Dakota in 2004, causing her bodily injury. In 2010, Plaintiff sent the summons and complaint to "Roughrider Legal Support Services," a private process server, instructing it to serve both documents upon Defendant on or before August 21, 2010. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding Plaintiff did not begin her negligence action against Defendant within the six-year statute of limitations by delivering the summons and complaint to Defendant within that time. View "Langowski v. Altendorf" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Osaba appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the administrative revocation of his driving privileges for one year following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded testimony was properly admitted to establish probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, and affirmed the district court's decision. View "Osaba v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Macintosh Doll appealed a district court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. On appeal, Defendant argued: (1) he did not receive a fair trial because he was tried with a codefendant, (2) he was unfairly prejudiced by the testimony of a sexual assault nurse, (3) the district court erred by denying his motion for mistrial due to a sequestration order violation and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, and affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Doll" on Justia Law

Theresa Horsted appealed a district court order, divorce judgment, and amended divorce judgment that awarded Christopher Horsted joint decision-making responsibility and visitation with the parties' daughter and dividing custody investigator fees between the parties. Concluding that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to allow proper appellate review of its decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for the district court to make findings regarding the child's best interests. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "Horsted v. Horsted" on Justia Law