Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Seibold appealed a district court order that denied her motions for a second amended judgment and to hold Defendant-Appellee Paul Leverington in contempt and denied her request for a hearing on her motions. Seibold and Leverington have one child together. In 2006, a judgment was entered finding Leverington is the child's natural father, awarded Seibold sole legal and physical custody of the child, and awarded Leverington visitation. In 2009, Leverington moved to modify custody. After a hearing, the district court entered an order finding there was a material change in circumstances and it was in the child's best interests to modify custody. The court awarded Leverington sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded Seibold visitation. The court also addressed the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and ordered that both parents have certain rights and duties related to the child, including the right to access and obtain copies of certain records related to the child and the right to contact the child by phone. An amended judgment was entered in September 2009. In 2011, Seibold moved for a second amended judgment, but the district court denied her motions without holding a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in denying Seibold's motions without providing her with sufficient time to schedule a hearing. The Court reversed the court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Seibold v. Leverington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Wade Baesler appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Because the Department failed to transmit a record compiled in the administrative proceedings, there was no evidence to support the Department's exercise of jurisdiction to suspend his license. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Baesler v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

As a condition of bail, the district court required Defendant Anna Hayes to consent to a warrantless search at any time of her person, vehicle, and residence. Concluding the bail condition was invalid under N.D.R.Crim.P. 46(a)(3), the Supreme Court reversed her convictions of four drug-related charges resulting from the bail-condition search. The Court affirmed her convictions of two prior unaffected charges. View "North Dakota v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Defendant Jose Pena Garcia appealed his conviction by jury of actual physical control. Defendant argued he was denied due process because the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor read case law to the jury during closing arguments. Officers testified at trial that while on patrol, they found Defendant "passed out and laying face down" on the driver's seat of his pickup truck with his legs outside the vehicle, with the motor still running. The officers testified that they shut off the engine, but neither could recall what happened to the vehicle's keys. Defendant presented testimony from his girlfriend that she drove him to his apartment earlier that evening, and that she left him in the vehicle because he fell asleep, and that she had the vehicle's keys inside the residence. The State presented evidence Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .198 percent within two hours of the officers finding him in the vehicle. After considering the State's comments within the context of the entire trial and the trial court's curative instruction to the jury, the Supreme Court concluded the prosecution's comments, if improper, did not result in an unfair trial and did not deprive Defendant of due process. View "North Dakota v. Pena Garcia" on Justia Law

"G.K.S." appealed a district court order finding G.K.S. chemically dependent and a person requiring treatment and that ordered him to undergo treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for up to 90 days. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed G.K.S.'s appeal as moot because the court's involuntary commitment order was vacated. View "Interest of G.K.S." on Justia Law

"W.J.C.A." appealed district court orders for involuntary mental health treatment and medication. The orders committed W.J.C.A. to the North Dakota State Hospital for up to ninety days and allowed the State Hospital to treat him with medication during that time. In her petition, the probation officer stated W.J.C.A. was "making suicidal threats to his sisters along with leaving bizarre and rambling messages that threaten peopl[e]'s lives and appear out of touch with reality." The probation officer added W.J.C.A. had left such messages to "various [l]aw enforcement agencies" and "various people in the community[,]" asserting W.J.C.A. was "a danger to himself and others[.]" Upon review, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence to support its orders. View "Interest of W.J.C.A." on Justia Law