Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent-Appellant Kelly Kroshus appealed a district court order granting Petitioner-Appellee Andrea Hanisch a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against him. The parties were never married but dated until Fall, 2011. They had one child together. After unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation, Hanisch petitioned the district court for the restraining order after he sent her a series of allegedly harassing text messages, some of which contained sexually explicit pictures of her, and threatened to post those pictures on a website. Kroshus essentially acknowledged that he sent the text messages described in Hanisch's petition for the restraining order, but testified that sending such messages and sexual pictures was a normal part of their relationship while they were dating. Kroshus argued that he and Hanisch would both often send pictures to each other and make derogatory comments toward each other, and that they did this to spice up their relationship, as a way of flirting. Kroshus contended that once he received the text message from her telling him to stop texting, he stopped. He also asserted that cell phone reception on his phone was limited and prevented him from receiving text messages from Hanisch until later in the day. Kroshus argued further that the facts of the case did not support a finding of disorderly conduct: the text messages to Hanisch took place during a relatively short period of time, that he had consumed a large amount of alcohol and thought they were still working on their relationship, and that the delay for him to stop texting her does not amount to an attempt to adversely affect her safety, security, or privacy. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the restraining order. View "Hanisch v. Kroshus" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court's judgment reversing the administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner-Apellee Timothy Mees's driving privileges for ninety-one days for driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded reasonable minds could have concluded the hearing officer's finding that the officer who administered the Intoxilyzer ascertained that Petitioner did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for twenty minutes prior to the Intoxilyzer test was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner's driving privileges. View "Mees v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Roland Riemers appealed a district court order that denied his petition for a writ to require the Secretary of State to remove the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor from the November 2012 general election ballot, or alternatively to place him on that ballot as the Libertarian party candidate. According to Riemers, both he and his running mate for lieutenant governor filed separate certificates of endorsement and statements of interests with the Secretary to place their names on the June 2012 primary ballot, but Richard Ames did not submit a signature page with his statement of interests. Accordingly, the Secretary placed Riemers' name on the primary ballot, but not that of his running mate Ames. Riemers received enough votes in the primary to qualify for placement on the general election ballot. The Secretary asked the Attorney General whether under North Dakota law, Riemers could be nominated for governor without an accompanying candidate for lieutenant governor. The Attorney General issued a written opinion ruling that Riemers was not nominated because the requirements for a joint ballot for governor and lieutenant governor were not satisfied. Riemers thereafter submitted sufficient signatures to the Secretary of State for certification on the November general election ballot as an independent candidate for governor, with Anthony Johns as his accompanying candidate for lieutenant governor. In September 2012, after filing matter in the district court and being informed a previous attempt to serve the petition on the Secretary of State by certified mail was insufficient under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2), Riemers personally served an Assistant Attorney General with the petition for a writ of mandamus, a writ of prohibition, a writ of quo warranto, and for preventive or declaratory relief. Riemers named the Secretary of State as the respondent and asked the district court to require the Secretary of State to remove the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor from the November general election ballot for failure to file a joint certificate of endorsement for the primary election. Riemers alternatively sought an order requiring the Secretary of State to place his name on the general election ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor with Anthony Johns as the Libertarian candidate for lieutenant governor. Riemers also sought an order directing the Secretary of State to stop discriminating against minor party and independent candidates. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Riemers failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to be certified for the general election ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for a writ to require the Secretary of State to certify his name for that ballot as the Libertarian candidate for governor. View "Riemers v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed a district court judgment that affirmed Job Service of North Dakota's decision to deny them unemployment benefits. Upon review of the administrative record and the plain language of N.D.C.C. 52-06-02(4), the Supreme Court concluded that claimants were only disqualified from unemployment compensation for employee-initiated work stoppages due to labor disputes, not to locked out Claimants as in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case back to Job Service for further proceedings. View "Olson v. Job Service" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Morrow appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision that suspended his driving privileges for one year. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that N.D.C.C. 39-20-04 required an officer to specifically indicate his or her belief that the driver's body contained alcohol on the Report and Notice form, which he says was nowhere on the face of the form. The Department argued that formulating the opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol was a prerequisite to requesting an onsite screening test, and therefore checking "Refused onsite screening test" implied the officer formulated an opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arresting officer failed to indicate his belief that Plaintiff's body contained alcohol, thereby making the report and notice deficient. The Court reversed the district court's order affirming the administrative suspension of Plaintiff's driving privileges. View "Morrow v. Ziegler" on Justia Law

Nikki LaFromboise appealed a district court judgment granting LaFromboise and Russell Niffenegger joint residential responsibility of the parties' minor child, S.R.L. LaFromboise and Niffenegger dated briefly but were not married nor lived together. The parties did not date while LaFramboise was pregnant. Niffenegger was present at the hospital for S.R.L.'s birth. LaFromboise and S.R.L. resided at Niffenegger's home for a short period after S.R.L.'s birth. LaFromboise and S.R.L. moved to Devils Lake; Niffenegger maintained his residence in Grand Forks. Niffenegger visited S.R.L. every other weekend. LaFromboise initiated a child support action, and Niffenegger was ordered to pay. In June 2011, Niffenegger commenced an action seeking primary residential responsibility of S.R.L. At the time of trial, the parties lived and worked in separate communities ninety miles apart, and LaFromboise maintained primary residential responsibility. The district court held a trial and concluded S.R.L.'s interests were best served by LaFromboise and Niffenegger sharing joint residential responsibility. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of joint residential responsibility, concluding the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of S.R.L." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant J.G. appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. Concluding the district court did not err in finding J.G. engaged in sexually predatory conduct and the State established by clear and convincing evidence that J.G. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of J.G." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Amber Hageman (now known as Sagert) appealed an amended divorce judgment modifying a prior judgment and granting Plaintiff-Appellee Nick Hageman primary residential responsibility for their minor child. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not clearly err in modifying the judgment and awarding Hageman primary residential responsibility of the child, the Court affirmed. View "Hageman v. Hageman" on Justia Law

B.F. (father) appealed a district court judgment that appointed G.S., G.J., and K.C. as guardians over J.S.L.F. J.S.L.F. was born in the summer of 2008 to B.F. and S.M.L. They lived in Grand Forks for the first few months of the child's life, and were the subject of several complaints received by Grand Forks County Social Services. Father, mother, and child moved to Glenburn allegedly to avoid social services. While they were in Glenburn, there were at least three more reports from social services about their supervision of the child, the condition of the house they lived in, and the feeding of the child. In November 2010, the mother left the child with two of the co-petitioners so she could move to Bismarck. She signed a co-petition for appointment of a guardian in which she gave consent for G.S., G.J., and K.C. to be appointed guardians. Several weeks later, the mother arrived at G.S. and G.J.'s home with the police and took the child back. The next day, the district court entered an ex parte order giving G.S., G.J., and K.C. a temporary guardianship over the child. In the order, the court found an emergency existed because the mother was unable to care for the child, and found the mother's parental rights had been suspended by the circumstances. The father was not given notice before the guardianship was entered, and no hearing was held before the temporary guardianship. The temporary guardians made a motion to make the guardianship permanent, and B.F. was served with notice of the petition. A hearing on the petition for permanent guardianship was held late summer 2011. The district court ruled that both parents' rights had been suspended by the circumstances, and that it was in the best interests of the child to appoint G.S., G.J., and K.C. as the child's permanent guardians. On appeal, B.F. argued his parental rights were not suspended by circumstances. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the facts in the record did not support a finding of abandonment (to preclude suspension of rights by the circumstances), and therefore the district court's finding that B.F. abandoned J.S.L.F. was clearly erroneous. View "Guardianship of J.S.L.F." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Bradley Davis appealed a district court order dismissing his motions for leave to depose witnesses and summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application. Because he produced no competent evidence to support his motion to depose Angela Cook, and the evidence he sought to obtain by deposing Graylan Bobo and Angela Cook would not have likely resulted in an acquittal, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny his motions for leave to depose Cook and Bobo. The district court did not err by summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application because no showing has been made that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. North Dakota" on Justia Law