Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Angela Dieterle appealed a divorce judgment and challenged the district court's rulings on primary residential responsibility, parenting time, marital property and debt distribution, and spousal support. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed, the judgment, but remanded the case for the court to complete a parenting plan for the parties. View "Dieterle v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

William Florian Wosick appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Wosick argued the district court abused its discretion by admitting a blood analysis report and obvious error occurred because of lack of notice of the charge against him and the improper admission of testimony. Finding that Wosick did not demonstrate that admission of the blood test report constituted a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment against him. View "City of Grafton v. Wosick" on Justia Law

Tyler Dawson appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for two years for driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded a reasoning mind could not reasonably conclude the finding that Dawson drove or was in physical control of a motor vehicle within two hours of the performance of a chemical test was supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and the Department hearing officer's decision and remanded to the Department for reinstatement of Dawson's driving privileges. View "Dawson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

The State appealed a juvenile court order adopting a judicial referee's findings of fact and order dismissing the State's petition alleging M.H.P. was a delinquent child. The State filed a petition alleging M.H.P. was a delinquent child who committed gross sexual imposition. The judicial referee found M.H.P. was not in need of treatment or rehabilitation as a delinquent child. The judicial referee explained he previously found beyond a reasonable doubt that M.H.P. committed the delinquent act of gross sexual imposition and stated, "Although this fact alone would be sufficient to sustain a finding of a need for treatment and rehabilitation, there was a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary." Based on these findings, the judicial referee dismissed the petition. The juvenile court adopted the judicial referee's findings and order, dismissed the proceeding and concluded the issue of M.H.P. registering as a sexual offender did not need to be addressed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution barred the State from appealing the juvenile court's order. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the juvenile court's findings. View "Interest of M.H.P." on Justia Law

Loren Woodward appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay spousal support in the amount of $1,000.00 per month to Rita Woodward. Loren Woodward does not challenge the finding that Rita Woodward's standard of living has decreased. Rather, as noted, he argues that Rita Woodward is capable of being rehabilitated, and therefore permanent spousal support is inappropriate. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Woodward v. Woodward" on Justia Law

Loren Larson, Kathryn Lervick, and Renee Larson appealed judgment dismissing their action to quiet title to certain mineral interests and finding the heirs of Hans Norheim and Thelma Larson Norheim were the current owners of the mineral interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in finding the Norheim heirs' statement of claim was sufficient to prevent the lapse of the mineral interests. View "Larson v. Norheim" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Wade Gilstad, individually and as trustee of an irrevocable trust, Charles Gilstad, and Ruth Smith ("Gilstads") appealed a district court judgment quieting title in certain mineral interests in Patricia Christeson. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Cour affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in concluding the Gilstads did not acquire title to the disputed mineral interests under the abandoned mineral statutes. View "Estate of Christeson v. Gilstad" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Arthur and Joy Lynn Hayden, in their individual capacities and as co-conservators and co-guardians of Todd Hayden, and the law firm of Smith Bakke Porsborg Schweigert & Armstrong ("law firm") appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their claims against Medcenter One, Inc., and other medical providers for expenses and attorney fees incurred in securing payments from Todd Hayden's medical insurance company for his medical expenses. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that the medical providers are not liable to the Haydens and the law firm under their asserted theories of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, equitable estoppel and the common fund doctrine. View "Hayden v. Medcenter One, Inc." on Justia Law

HIT, Inc. appealed a district court judgment affirming the administrative order requiring HIT to pay back excess reimbursements in the amount of $90,699.80. HIT argued the Department used an incorrect method to calculate the margin to determine whether HIT was required to refund the excess reimbursements. Furthermore, HIT argued it was reversible error for the ALJ to defer to the agency's interpretation of its own regulations. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "HIT, Inc. v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Sandra Hoverson appealed and Carl Hoverson cross-appealed a divorce judgment that distributed the parties' marital estate and ordering Carl to pay Sandra $3,000 per month for spousal support for two years, $3,002 per month for child support, and attorney's fees. The parties' arguments raised issues about the property distribution, the duration and amount of spousal support, the propriety and the amount of an upward deviation for child support, and the award of attorney's fees. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hoverson v. Hoverson" on Justia Law