Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The City of Williston shut down a man camp because of the lack of a fire protection system. Black Gold Oil Field Services applied and received multiple extensions for time to install the system, and finally got approved for a water tank (first step in the installation). At a City meeting, the City fire chief recommended shutting down the camp because it didn't seem like much progress was being made to install the system. The City accepted recommendation and shut down the camp. Black Gold filed for an injunction to stop the City from shutting its camp. The Supreme Court concluded that Black Gold failed to establish a substantial probability of succeeding on the merits of its underlying lawsuit against Williston and the City Commission and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Black Gold's request for a preliminary injunction. View "Black Gold Oil Field Services, LLC v. City of Williston" on Justia Law

Maurice Thill appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Thill argued that the district court's order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the findings were inadequate. After reviewing the record, the Supreme Court determined the district court did not make sufficient findings enabling the Court to review the appeal. The district court did not identify the facts on which it relied in determining Thill's likelihood to engage in further sexual predatory conduct or the facts on which it relied in determining Thill had serious difficulty in controlling his behavior. "These conclusory, general findings do not comply with N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a)." The case was remanded for specific findings of fact. View "Interest of Thill" on Justia Law

In 2014, appellee Neil Bayles was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. He timely requested an administrative hearing, at the conclusion of which, an administrative hearing officer suspended Bayles' driving privileges for ninety-one days. The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision suspending Bayles' driving privilege because the Department failed to timely file the hearing transcript within the twenty-day period under N.D.C.C. 39-20-06. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court erred as a matter of law by summarily reversing the hearing officer's decision based on noncompliance with the statute, and because Bayles failed to show prejudice caused by the claimed delay or demonstrate the Department systemically disregarded the requirements of the law. View "Bayles v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Blume Construction, Inc. appealed a district court judgment affirming a Job Service North Dakota decision, finding Blume did not file a valid appeal and the agency's determination assigning Blume a final penalty tax rate. Blume received a notice of determination from Job Service informing Blume that it would be assigned a penalty tax rate for unemployment insurance. The notice stated the agency conducted an audit and concluded there was a transfer of ownership and payroll between Blume and another company that was knowingly done to obtain a lower tax rate for unemployment insurance. The notice informed Blume it would be assigned the highest tax rate assignable for the next three years. The notice advised Blume the determination would become final unless a written appeal was made to Job Service within fifteen days. Job Service received an electronic appeal request for Blume signed by Craig Fidler. Fidler was identified as a licensed attorney from Colorado. Fidler was not licensed to practice law in North Dakota. In approximately May 2014, Fidler notified the referee he was unable to secure a sponsoring attorney licensed in North Dakota. During that same time period, the referee was informed a North Dakota attorney would be representing Blume. Blume argued the referee erred in finding Blume's attorney engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and the appealed request the attorney filed was void. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Blume Construction, Inc. v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Christopher Williamson appealed a district court order affirming the Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for two years. Officer Travis Martinson stopped Williamson after he drove over a fire hose at a fire scene. Martinson smelled alcohol in Williamson's vehicle and noticed Williamson had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. Williamson refused field sobriety tests but consented to perform an onsite screening test. The onsite test estimated Williamson's blood alcohol content was greater than permitted for operating a vehicle and Martinson arrested Williamson. Martinson took Williamson to the Williams County Correctional Center and Sergeant Randy Haugenoe administered an Intoxilyzer 8000 chemical test. The Intoxilyzer reported Williamson had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.231 percent by weight. A hearing officer introduced the Intoxilyzer report at an administrative hearing. Williamson objected, alleging the statutory requirements were not met and the report was inadmissible for lack of foundation. The hearing officer concluded the test was fairly administered, the objection was overruled and the hearing officer's suspension of Williamson's driving privileges for two years was not in error. The district court affirmed the decision. Williamson appealed, arguing the district court erred by receiving evidence that was not adequately authenticated. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williamson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

James Leno appealed a Department of Transportation decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the arresting officer's testimony sufficiently established he performed the required steps listed on the specimen submitter's checklist and Leno received a fair and impartial hearing, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Leno v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Patricia Olson appealed a judgment affirming a decision of the Department of Transportation to suspend her driving privileges for two years. Because the Supreme Court concluded the Report and Notice form was sufficient to give the Department authority to suspend Olson's driving privileges, and because the Court rejected her constitutional arguments, it affirmed the judgment. View "Olson v. Levi" on Justia Law

In May 2014, Bureau of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Arnie Rummel applied for a search warrant for the Darrell Schrum Trucking Shop in Dickey County, claiming there was probable cause to believe a stolen New Holland payloader was being concealed in the shop. The district court issued the search warrant to seize the payloader as evidence of a crime and commanding that it be brought before the court. Rummel executed the search warrant two days later and took custody of the payloader. Rummel immediately handed the payloader over to a non-law enforcement, non-government party who trucked the payloader out of North Dakota. Schrum moved for return of property under N.D.R.Crim.P. 41, claiming he purchased the payloader as a good-faith purchaser and requested the court order the property be returned to him immediately or, alternatively, the property not be transferred or transported further until the ownership issues were resolved. The Dickey County state's attorney and an assistant attorney general appeared on behalf of the State. Schrum and Rummel testified. After the hearing, the court granted Schrum's motion and ordered the State and Rummel to return the payloader to the Dickey County Sheriff for safekeeping. Schrum moved for contempt and requested remedial contempt sanctions. Schrum contended the court ordered Rummel to return the property to Dickey County, but Rummel did not comply with the court's order. He reported the payloader was in Mexico and later advised counsel the payloader was in Texas. Schrum requested the court order Rummel and the State to reimburse him for the loss and injury he incurred as a result of the contempt in an amount to be determined following a hearing. The district court found Rummel was in contempt, and ordered Rummel and the State to pay sanctions. The State appealed. Although it appeared undisputed that Rummel secured a search warrant to seize a payloader as evidence of a crime, while intending to hand it over immediately to a non-law enforcement party, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in ordering Rummel and the Attorney General to pay compensatory remedial contempt sanctions without first requiring compliance with the statutory requirements for claims against the State. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. New Holland" on Justia Law

In November 2002, J.G. was initially committed as a sexually dangerous individual based on the crime of indecent exposure which occurred when he was 12 years old. J.G. has unsuccessfully petitioned for discharge numerous times since his initial commitment. J.G. appealed an order finding he continued to be a sexually dangerous individual and civilly committed him to the care, custody, and control of the executive director of the Department of Human Services for placement in the least restrictive facility or program. Because the district court's findings of fact were supported by clear and convincing evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the commitment decision. View "Matter of J.G." on Justia Law

Darl Hehn appealed an order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. In 1997, Hehn pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of terrorizing. In 2003, Hehn was released from prison on supervised probation but his probation was subsequently revoked, and he was returned to prison in 2004. In 2006, Hehn was committed to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous individual, and the Supreme Court affirmed the commitment. In 2011, Hehn filed a second petition for discharge. While his second petition was pending, Hehn also filed a letter with the district court requesting an annual review, which the court treated as a third petition. The district court denied his second petition, which was affirmed on appeal. In December 2013, Hehn filed another petition requesting a discharge hearing. On August 14 and 15, 2014, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Hehn's petition for discharge. In November 2014, the court denied his petition, finding he continues to be a sexually dangerous individual. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Hehn had engaged in sexually predatory conduct; had a congenital or acquired condition that was manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; was likely to engage in future sexually predatory acts; and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court specifically found a nexus between Hehn's disorder and the likelihood of re-offense and found Hehn would have serious difficulty controlling his behavior in a less restrictive environment. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matter of Hehn" on Justia Law