Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michiel Nuveen appealed a district court judgment deviating upward from the Child Support Guidelines and ordering him to pay $3,620.00 per month in child support. On appeal he argued the district court made a mathematical error. Finding that the district court did not misapply the statutory guidelines in calculating child support, nor did it abuse its discretion in deviating from those guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Nuveen v. Nuveen" on Justia Law

Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson, Inc., ("KLJ") appealed a district court judgment awarding the City of Valley City ("City") costs and expenses the City incurred defending itself in the underlying lawsuit and pursuing its indemnity claim against KLJ. The City entered into a contract with KLJ to provide engineering services for a paving and sewer project. The City hired a general contractor for the project. The contract between the City and the contractor required the contractor to furnish all labor, materials, and equipment for the project. The contractor was required to provide a payment bond under the terms of its contract with the City, and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") was the surety under the bond. Specialized Contracting, Inc. ("SCI"), entered into a subcontract with the contractor to complete some of the work on the project. In 2007, SCI sued St. Paul for breach of its duties under the payment bond, seeking compensation for additional work SCI alleged it completed on the project for which the contractor refused to pay. St. Paul served a third-party complaint against the City for breach of contract and indemnity, alleging the concrete repair work was outside the scope of the City's contract with the contractor, the City was liable to the contractor for any additional compensation SCI was claiming against the payment bond if SCI established KLJ's decision to replace the concrete was beyond the scope of the contract, and the City was required to indemnify St. Paul for any judgments against it in favor of SCI arising from decisions made by KLJ. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded KLJ did not have a duty to defend the City. The Court reversed the district court's judgment awarding the City costs and expenses, and remanded the case for a determination of whether KLJ was entitled to recover its costs and expenses as a prevailing party. View "Specialized Contracting, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins." on Justia Law

Child S.B., is an orphan. Her mother and presumed father are dead. No one claimed custody through either parent. K.F. and M.F. physically had the child and claimed to be "private foster parents" even though they were not related to the child and appeared to have no legal authority for their possession. J.H. "gave" them the child. J.H. is not related to S.B., but thought he might be "technically the guardian" even though the record reflected no appointment as a guardian. D.E. believed he was the biological father, and sued, seeking to establish his paternity of S.B. D.E. named K.F. and M.F. as defendants, apparently because they physically had the child. K.F. and M.F. objected to the paternity action going forward, and the district court dismissed the case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court should have appointed a guardian ad litem for the child and that K.F. and M.F. had no right to challenge the paternity action as they did. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.E. v. K.F." on Justia Law

Christina Deyle appealed the district court judgment granting Eric Deyle primary residential responsibility of the parties' two minor children. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award of primary residential responsibility to Eric Deyle. However, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings because the district court failed to adequately explain its denial of summer parenting time, interim child support and attorney fees. View "Deyle v. Deyle" on Justia Law

n 2001, Defendant Mark Palmer was convicted of four counts of gross sexual imposition. Defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In 2011, Defendant appealed a district court order that denied his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from an order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Palmer's motion. View "Palmer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota, through Williams County Assistant State's Attorney Nathan Kirke Madden, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate a pretrial order requiring the State to produce the Director of the State Crime Laboratory at trial in the prosecution of James Christianson for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The State argued the district court misinterpreted N.D.R.Ev. 707 to require the State to produce the Director for Christianson's criminal trial. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order, concluding that the record did not establish that the Director made any testimonial statements in an analytical report assessing Christianson's blood-alcohol content. View "North Dakota, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Tresenriter appealed criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict found him guilty of 22 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, one count of terrorizing, one count of child endangerment, and one count of simple assault. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Tresenriter failed to properly preserve issues for appeal when he did not timely object to admission of results of a buccal swab DNA test and did not move to consolidate the multiple conspiracy charges into a single conspiracy count. View "North Dakota v. Tresenriter" on Justia Law

In an action stemming from a failed sale of land from Greg and Shelly Schwab to Raymond Zajac, Zajac appealed the judgment entered after a jury awarded the Schwabs $4,000 on their slander of title claim against Zajac, after the district court ordered disbursement of Zajac's payment of $10,000 in earnest money to the Schwabs and after the court ordered Zajac to execute a document disclaiming any interest in the Schwabs' land. Zajac argued the district court erred in not admitting evidence at trial involving the Schwabs' attempt to cure a waterfowl easement on the land as an accommodation to complete the transaction, the court erred in not admitting evidence at trial of the present value of the Schwabs' land and denying him due process and a fair trial by taking over Zajac's self-represented case. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to determine the Schwabs' attorney fees on appeal for their slander of title claim. View "Schwab v. Zajac" on Justia Law

Defendant Esteban Dominguez was charged with attempted murder and terrorizing after he allegedly threatened David Nelson with a .22 caliber rifle. When Nelson began to run away, Dominguez allegedly shot at Nelson four times. Defendant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and request a new trial after he was found guilty of attempted murder and terrorizing. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

William Falconer appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from coming within 500 feet of Bridget Niska for three years, an order granting Niska temporary custody of the parties' minor child, and a mandate ordering visitation exchanges for the child through Falconer's mother. Falconer claimed that the court erred in issuing a domestic violence protection order based on an incident of domestic violence that occurred more than seven years ago, that he acted in self-defense in the incident seven years ago, and that Niska used the process for procuring a protection order to thwart his visitation with the parties' minor child and as a means to punish him for the parties' failing relationship. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the judicial referee's findings were insufficient to understand the basis for the referee's decision, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Niska v. Falconer" on Justia Law