Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Deborah Reichman appealed a judgment that granted Plaintiff-Appellee McKenzie County a prescriptive easement for a road that crosses her land in McKenzie County and dismissed her counterclaim for inverse condemnation. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred in granting a prescriptive easement for the road because the court failed to correctly calculate the 20-year period for a prescriptive easement backward from when McKenzie County began the lawsuit in 2006. She argued the County did not clearly and convincingly establish adverse use during that period because the adjacent landowners, including her predecessors in interest, blocked the road for their ranching operations and any public use of the road was not continuous and uninterrupted. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err and affirmed its decisions on the issues Defendant raised on appeal. View "McKenzie Co. v. Reichman" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Spence Koenig appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for ninety-one days. Petitioner was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding and for expired tabs. Petitioner agreed to perform a field sobriety test and failed it. The trooper told Petitioner's girlfriend that Petitioner would be released when someone over eighteen years old came to pick Petitioner up. Petitioner argued he was denied an opportunity to obtain an independent sobriety test after he made sufficient arrangements for one because he was held in custody for over three hours with no attempt or offer to transport him to the hospital for the additional test. Petitioner asserted that "the responsibility of securing [his] right to an independent blood test became that of law enforcement holding him in custody[,]" when it became apparent his ride was not coming. Finding that the officers did not have a duty to transport Petitioner to the hospital to obtain the independent test, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision. View "Koenig v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" 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

Defendants Andrew and Ricky Mittleider appealed a district court's judgment entered on their conditional guilty pleas relating to to illegal hunting, taking (or attempting to take) possession of big game, and hunting in a closed or restricted area. The Mittleiders moved to suppress all evidence entered against them at trial, arguing that the Game Warden and other law enforcement officials violated their reasonable expectation of privacy by entering their property to confiscate the weapon used to shoot the deer, photos taken of the deer and the deer itself because they had "no trespassing" signs posted. Defendants also filed a motion in limine to offer an affirmative defense of "mistake of fact": that they reasonably believed they were not hunting on a refuge because signs were not properly posted. The district court denied their motions, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendants' "no trespassing" signs did not created a reasonable expectation of privacy in the entrance of their property. As such, their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Mittleider" on Justia Law

Ransom County appealed a grant of summary judgment that awarded Plaintiffs-Appellees Tracy and Lisa Jund the $250,000 coverage limit of Ransom County's underinsured motorist coverage. The issue in this appeal involved the meaning of language in N.D.C.C. § 26.1-40-15.4(1) that "[a]ny damages payable to or for any insured for . . . underinsured motorist coverage must be reduced by" the amounts payable under any Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") law. The Junds sued Johnnie B's Bar & Grill and Ransom County, alleging Tracy Jund was injured during the course of his employment as a Ransom County Deputy Sheriff when his patrol car was involved in an accident with an underinsured motor vehicle driven by Shane Reinhardt, an individual the Junds alleged had unlawfully consumed alcoholic beverages at Johnnie B's. The Junds alleged Ransom County, as a pool member of the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund, provided underinsured motorist coverage for the patrol car and was liable to the Junds for $250,000 in underinsured benefits under the limits of its underinsured motorist coverage. The district court construed that language to authorize a reduction for WSI benefits payable to Tracy Jund from the Junds' total compensatory damages, not from Ransom County's underinsured motorist coverage limit. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court for substantially the same reasons outlined in its decision. View "Jund v. Johnnie B's Bar & Grill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Leah Richard appealed the dismissal of her claims for negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and assault and battery against Washburn Public Schools (the District). Petitioner, a sixteen-year-old student at Washburn High School, began working as a part-time custodian for the District. Gary Fuchs was the head custodian and her supervisor. Plaintiff alleged that during her employment with the District, which ended in 2003, Fuchs subjected her to "inappropriate conduct . . . including sexual comments and touching." In April 2006, Plaintiff sued the District seeking damages based on claims of negligent hiring, supervision and retention of Fuchs, and assault and battery. The court dismissed the negligent hiring claim, concluding Fuch's conduct was not foreseeable as a matter of law because Plaintiff produced no evidence showing the District knew or should have known Fuchs would harass or physically touch co-workers. The court dismissed the assault and battery claim, concluding it was barred by a two-year statute of limitations. Although the court determined genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Plaintiff's claims for negligent supervision and retention, the court dismissed those claims on the ground they were precluded by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workforce Safety and Insurance Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for negligent hiring and assault and battery, which she did not challenge on appeal. The Court reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for negligent supervision and retention because the trial court erred in concluding those claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workforce Safety and Insurance Act. View "Richard v. Washburn Public Schools" on Justia Law

"J.T.N." appealed a district court order which found he remained a sexually dangerous individual and that denied his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. On appeal to the Supreme Court, J.T.N. argued the district court erred by denying his discharge petition because five of the six experts testified he was not a sexually dangerous individual. He did not contest the findings that he engaged in sexually predatory conduct and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. He argued the findings that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior were clearly erroneous. The State responded that the district court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finding that the district court did not apply an erroneous view of the law in determining J.T.N. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and J.T.N.'s continued commitment. View "Matter of J.T.N." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant John Engstrom appealed a district court judgment affirming the administrative revocation of his driver's license for four years after his arrest for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Petitioner argued the Department of Transportation should not have revoked his driver's license: his constitutional rights were violated because the arresting officer did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to order Petitioner from his car, and the officer did not have probable cause to place Petitioner under arrest. Because the Supreme Court concluded the police officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to seize and probable cause to arrest Petitioner, it affirm the revocation of Petitioner's license. View "Engstrom v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs John and Lori Finstad appealed a district court judgment which granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Ransom-Sargent Water Users, Inc., n/k/a Southeast Water Users District, and its board members (collectively, "Water District"), and dismissed their complaint. The Finstads owned 80 acres of land in Ransom County, and leased the adjacent 240 acres from Willis and Doris Olson. In 1997, the Finstads and Olsons granted options to purchase their land to the Water District. The options contained a provision which allowed the Finstads and Olsons to lease back the property for a five-year period, after which they had a nonassignable right of first refusal for the next five years. The options also stated that the land could only be used for pasture and hayland purposes if it were leased back, and no feedlots, fertilizer use, or chemical use would be permitted on the land. The options provided that any violation of the use restrictions would result in the immediate termination of the lease and the right of first refusal. In 2001, the Water District exercised its options to purchase the 320 acres. The district court found that the Finstads exercised the right to lease their former property back from the Water District, and also exercised the right to lease back the Olsons' former property, which the Olsons had assigned to the Finstads. In early 2006, the Finstads brought suit against the Water District and its board members. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction because the Finstads had filed for bankruptcy. The Water District moved for summary judgment which was granted. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in applying the three-year statute of limitations to the Finstads' contract claims, and genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Finstad v. Ransom-Sargent Water Users, Inc." on Justia Law