Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mohamed Keita appealed a divorce judgment that awarded Jennifer Keita primary residential responsibility for the parties' minor child, granted Mohamed Keita supervised parenting time for the child, denied Mohamed Keita joint decision-making authority for the child, distributed the parties' marital property, awarded Jennifer Keita attorney fees, and reserved jurisdiction for a future spousal support award. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in awarding of attorney fees and distributing property, but that the court erred in awarding supervised parenting time, child support, and in reserving jurisdiction for future spousal support. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Keita v. Keita" on Justia Law

Brendan Muldoon appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order from an administrative law judge ("ALJ") which: affirmed an order of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") finding Muldoon was an employer under N.D.C.C. 65-01-02(17); that Muldoon wilfully failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for his employees; and that Muldoon was personally liable for past premiums and penalties owed to WSI. Upon review of the ALJ's record, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the ALJ's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Muldoon v. WSI" on Justia Law

Daniel Herzig appealed a jury verdict which found him guilty of criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. Under "North Dakota v. Meyer," (361 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1985)), the Supreme Court concluded this dispute was ill-suited for a criminal action and instead should have been resolved in a civil action because there existed a legitimate dispute as to whether the area upon which Mr. Herzig was alleged to have trespassed was a public road by prescription under N.D.C.C. 24-07-01. Under "Meyer," the Court reversed the judgment and remand to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Ronald Rowland appealed the grant of summary judgment that declared that 15 deeds executed in the 1950s covering certain Bowman County property conveyed royalty interests rather than mineral interests, and an order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. Because the deeds were ambiguous and reasonable differences of opinion existed as to the inferences drawn about the grantor's intent from the language of the deeds and the extrinsic evidence presented, the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hamilton v. Woll" on Justia Law

Christopher Haag appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief from criminal convictions entered after he pled guilty to drug-related charges involving JWH-018 1-Pentyl-3 (1-naphthoyl) indole ("JWH-018"). Haag was charged with possession of a controlled substance, with intent to deliver to another and with possession of drug paraphernalia for using a controlled substance for acts alleged to have occurred on November 12, 2010. JWH-018 has been identified as a synthetic cannabinoid, and the parties referred to it as "Spark." Haag pled guilty to the charges in May 2011. In November 2011, Haag petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming JWH-018 was not a prohibited controlled substance when he committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint. The State resisted Haag's petition and moved for summary disposition, arguing the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy's final rule delineating JWH-018 as a prohibited controlled substance was in effect when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint on November 12, 2010. We affirm, concluding JWH-018 was a prohibited controlled substance when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint in November 2010. View "Haag v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Paul Ehlen appealed a judgment that dismissed his action against John and LynnDee Melvin to enforce a purchase agreement, a judgment for costs, and an amended judgment. The matter stemmed from a property transaction between the parties from early 2011. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court's finding the parties did not mutually consent to the purchase agreement was not clearly erroneous. View "Ehlen v. Melvin" on Justia Law

Bradley Dean Jordet and his attorney, Jonathan T. Garaas, appealed orders denying Bradley Jordet's motion to allow him to setoff his spousal support arrearages against Tracy Lyndal Jordet's child support arrearages, and holding Garaas in contempt and fining him $1,000 for intentional disobedience of the district court's earlier order. The Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a setoff, but did abuse its discretion in holding Garaas in contempt. Therefore the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Jordet v. Jordet" on Justia Law

Appellant Collette Bishop appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an administrative law judge's order ("ALJ") which affirmed an order of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") denying further vocational rehabilitation benefits and temporary total disability benefits to Bishop. Upon review, the Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding the ALJ's finding that Bishop was capable of performing the return-to-work options identified in her vocational rehabilitation plan was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Bishop v. No. Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law

Richie Fonder appealed a judgment that awarded him and Bobbi Fonder equal primary residential responsibility of the parties' three minor children and an order that denied his motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) for reconsideration. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(j) motion and did not clearly err in awarding equal primary residential responsibility to him and Bobbi Fonder. View "Fonder v. Fonder" on Justia Law

Clinton Gardner appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for one year. Gardner argued that because he wasn't given the implied consent advisory for the request for chemical testing, his conduct could not be deemed a refusal. He also argued he consented to the test when he said "yeah, I'll take the test," but was never given the opportunity to take the test. The administrative officer found the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Gardner was in actual physical control of a vehicle, and had effectively refused the blood test by his conduct despite stating he would take the test. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the hearing officer's decision was supported by the weight of the evidence in the record, and was entitled to deference. View "Gardner v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law