Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Allen Hammeren appealed a divorce judgment that awarded primary residential responsibility and child support to Kelli Hammeren and an order that denied his post-judgment motion to reconsider the effective date of his child support obligation. Because the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not clearly err in awarding primary residential responsibility and did not abuse its discretion when awarding child support commencing October 1, 2010, the Court affirmed. View "Hammeren v. Hammeren" on Justia Law

Richard Herring appealed a district court summary judgment dismissing his action against Lisbon Partners Credit Fund, Ltd. Partnership ("Lisbon Partners") and Five Star Services ("Five Star") for nuisance, negligence, and civil trespass. Herring owned a commercial building in Lisbon. The adjoining property, including an apartment building, was owned by Lisbon Partners and managed by Five Star. Branches from a large tree located on Lisbon Partners' property overhang onto Herring's property and brush against his building. For many years Herring trimmed back the branches and cleaned out the leaves, twigs, and debris that would fall from the encroaching branches and clog his downspouts and gutters. Herring claimed that the encroaching branches caused water and ice dams to build up on his roof, and eventually caused water damage to the roof, walls, and fascia of his building. Herring contended that, after he had the damages repaired, he requested compensation from Lisbon Partners and Five Star but they denied responsibility for the damages. Herring sued Lisbon Partners and Five Star for the cost of the repairs to his building, alleging Lisbon Partners and Five Star had committed civil trespass and negligence and had maintained a nuisance by breaching their duty to maintain and trim the tree so that it did not cause damage to his property. The district court granted Lisbon Partners and Five Star's motion for summary judgment dismissing Herring's claims, concluding Lisbon Partners and Five Star had no duty to trim or maintain the tree and Herring's remedy was limited to self-help. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded: "[a]lthough … we provide a framework for resolution of disputes arising from encroaching trees which authorizes judicial and self-help remedies, we stress that it is preferable for the parties to cooperate and agree on an amicable resolution to such disputes. Under the rule we adopt today, Lisbon Partners and Five Star, as the owners of the encroaching tree, are not liable for any damages caused merely by the tree dropping leaves, flowers, or fruit. Herring alleged damages caused by branches from the offending tree physically scraping against the building. If Herring [could] present evidence establishing damages caused by the intruding branches physically contacting the building, Lisbon Partners and Five Star would be liable for such damages under the 'Hawaii' rule." The case was remanded for a determination of whether there was a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. View "Herring v. Lisbon Partners" on Justia Law

Hau Tran appealed a district court order granting Shannon Krueger's motion to modify primary residential responsibility of their child. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's decision to modify primary residential responsibility was not clearly erroneous. View "Krueger v. Tran" on Justia Law

Karl Moseng and his wife Vicki Moseng were employed by Hartland Mutual Insurance Company. Lynn Frey was Vicki Moseng's supervisor from 1985 to 2008. Karl Moseng alleged Frey used his position as a supervisor with Hartland to arrange sexual liaisons with Vicki Moseng from 1988 through 1991. Specifically, Karl Moseng alleged Frey sent Karl Moseng on geographically distant employment assignments to more easily allow the liaisons between Frey and Vicki Moseng. Karl Moseng brought claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Frey and Hartland. Frey and Hartland moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the dismissal with prejudice. Karl Moseng thereafter appealed, arguing his claims were legally sufficient to survive dismissal with prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Karl Moseng's claims were legally insufficient, and affirmed. View "Moseng v. Frey" on Justia Law

Gene Kirkpatrick appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded his statement to law enforcement was voluntary and properly used against him, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy to commit burglary conviction, and the trial court did not err in issuing jury instructions. View "North Dakota v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota, by and through the Department of Human Services and its Child Support Enforcement Division ("the Department"), appealed a district court order denying its application for an order to enforce an administrative subpoena. In July 2010, the Department issued an administrative subpoena to the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund ("NDIRF") directing it to provide information on all claims submitted to the Fund. NDIRF objected to the subpoena, contending that the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF and that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. The Department filed an application for an order enforcing the administrative subpoena in district court. The district court determined that the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF and denied the application. The district court did not address NDIRF's arguments that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order denying the Department's application for an order enforcing the administrative subpoena. Because the district court did not address NDIRF's contentions that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to properly consider these issues under the limited four-factor review of enforcement of an administrative subpoena. View "North Dakota v. No. Dakota Ins. Reserve Fund" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Shannon appealed a district court divorce judgment and a post-judgment order. The judgment entered in this case did not adjudicate all claims of the parties, and the court did not certify the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded it did not have jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. View "Shannon v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Wenco, a North Dakota limited partnership, appealed a judgment quieting title to certain Mountrail County royalty and mineral interests in EOG Resources, Inc. ("EOG"), and QEP Energy Company ("QEP"), and dismissing Wenco's claims for conversion and unjust enrichment against EOG and QEP. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in ruling as a matter of law that Wenco's interest bore the entire burden of a prior royalty interest conveyance in the subject property, that EOG and QEP did not waive their rights to claim the prior royalty interest conveyance burdened only Wenco's interest, and consequently, that Wenco had no viable claims against EOG and QEP for conversion and unjust enrichment. View "Wenco v. EOG Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven Zaiser, as Chairman of the Sponsoring Committee for the Statutory Initiative Relating to the North Dakota Medical Marijuana Act, asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger to place an initiated measure for the Medical Marijuana Act on the November 6, 2012, general election ballot after the Secretary of State rejected 7,559 signatures on circulated petitions and decided the measure did not qualify for placement on that ballot. The Sponsoring Committee claimed that although the submitted petitions included some elector signatures forged by petition circulators, the petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot. Because of time constraints for placing the measure on the November 6, 2012, ballot, the Supreme Court issued a dispositive order on September 19, 2012, denying the Sponsoring Committee's request for relief and stating a written opinion would be filed at a later date. Because the circulators' petitions at issue in this case included signatures forged by the circulators in violation of a mandatory constitutional provision, the Secretary of State correctly rejected those petitions in calculating the number of elector signatures necessary to place the measure on the November 6, 2012, ballot and correctly determined the remaining petitions contained insufficient signatures to place the measure on that ballot. View "Zaiser v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Merwin Carlson appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits after remand. Under the law of the underlying case, the Supreme Court held that the administrative law judge ("ALJ") erred in concluding WSI properly exercised its continuing jurisdiction under N.D.C.C.65-05-04 to deny Carlson benefits on remand. The Court reversed and remanded for WSI to award Carlson benefits based on the ALJ's calculation that Carlson's average weekly wage was $722. View "Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law