Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

David and Marjorie George appealed the grant of summary judgment which quieted title to gravel, clay, and scoria in a quarter section of land in McKenzie County in Rosalie Veeder. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting summary judgment quieting title in Veeder and in denying the Georges' motion to amend their complaint to seek reformation. View "George v. Veeder" on Justia Law

Carol Forsman appealed a judgment which dismissed as a matter of law under N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(a) her dram shop and negligence action against Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc., doing business as Muddy Rivers, and Amanda Espinoza. Forsman argued the district court erred in granting Muddy Rivers' motion for judgment as a matter of law, claiming she introduced sufficient evidence to establish Muddy Rivers knowingly provided alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, Espinoza, and Espinoza caused Forsman's injuries. Forsman also claimed the court erred in sustaining Muddy Rivers' hearsay objections to several police reports and she was denied the opportunity to call a rebuttal witness to challenge inconsistent statements by witnesses associated with Muddy Rivers. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on Forsman's dram shop claim, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Forsman v. Blues, Brews and Bar-B-Ques, Inc." on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Human Services ("the Department") appealed a district court judgment reversing the Department's order determining Edward Ennis was ineligible for continued Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits. Ennis cross-appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his motion for costs. Ennis, self-employed, purchased a truck for $5,238 for use in his business. He paid for the truck in full and thus did not make ongoing payments. In March 2011, the County conducted a periodic recertification review to determine Ennis's continued eligibility for SNAP benefits. The County calculated his anticipated 2011 self-employment income based upon his actual 2010 self-employment income, without deducting the $5,238 expense for the truck. Based on this calculation, the County determined Ennis's anticipated 2011 income exceeded the income limit for SNAP benefits and issued a denial of benefits. Ennis appealed to the Department and requested a hearing. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and order determining that the purchase price of the truck should have been deducted from Ennis's anticipated 2011 self-employment income and recommending that the County's denial of further benefits be reversed. The executive director of the Department disagreed with the ALJ's recommendation and issued amended findings, conclusions and final order affirming the County's determination that Ennis was not entitled to further SNAP benefits. Ennis appealed to the district court, which reversed the Department's final order and reinstated the recommended findings of the ALJ. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and reinstated the Department's final order denying further benefits. View "Ennis v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Wilfred Dahly appealed a district court judgment which affirmed a final order of the North Dakota Department of Human Services ("Department") which determined he was ineligible for Medicaid benefits. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the Department erred when it concluded the proceeds of the sale of Wilfred Dahly's home were an available asset which exceeded the asset limit for Medicaid eligibility. View "Dahly v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Bryen Birkholz appealed a judgment ordering him to forfeit $44,140 in currency seized during a search of his residence and an order denying his motion for a new trial. In August 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for Birkholz's residence and found eleven growing marijuana plants, a hydration system for the plants, three bags containing various amounts of marijuana, several empty bags, drug paraphernalia, and $44,140 in currency in a safe in a desk near the marijuana. In May 2011, Birkholz pled guilty to manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Birkholz argued the district court erred in applying the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to currency he claimed was seized under the authority of N.D.C.C. 29-31.1-03. He also claimed there was insufficient evidence of a transaction to justify a forfeiture of the currency under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3(1)(d) and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Birkholz did not raise an issue in the district court about the applicability of the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to this case and could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also concluded the court's findings supporting forfeiture were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Birkholz's motion for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. $44,140 U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

Sheryl Fines appealed a judgment that dismissed her action against Ressler Enterprises, Inc. (doing business as Ressler Siding and Windows (Ressler)). Fines argued the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her action against Ressler as a sanction for spoliation of evidence. She contended dismissal was not appropriate because the court erred in determining Ressler was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence and the court failed to consider the availability of less severe sanctions. Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction of dismissal and accordingly affirmed. View "Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Strata Corporation and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim against United Crane & Excavation, Inc., after the district court certified the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Because this case did not represent the "infrequent harsh case for immediate appeal and subsequent proceedings in the district court may moot the issue raised on appeal," the district court improvidently certified the partial summary judgment as final and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "City of Mandan v. Strata Corp." on Justia Law

Tim Clausnitzer appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his lawsuit against Tesoro Refinery and Marketing Company alleging lawful-activity discrimination under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 14-02.4. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Clausnitzer failed to make a prima facie showing that he was a member of a protected class under the Act when Tesoro terminated his employment. View "Clausnitzer v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co." on Justia Law

Andrew Thomas appealed the district court's judgment entered after a jury awarded Randall and Shannon Bakke $25,000 plus interest for breach of contract, negligence and fraud. Thomas argued insufficient evidence existed to pierce the corporate veil of D&A Landscaping Company, LLC and hold him personally liable for breach of contract and fraud. Thomas also claimed that the district court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proving fraud and that insufficient evidence existed to support the fraud verdict. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the corporate veil was not pierced and the jury instruction on the burden of proof for fraud was law of the case. View "Bakke v. D & A Landscaping Co." on Justia Law

Dale Burke appealed a judgment dismissing his application for post-conviction relief after the district court denied his motion for DNA testing. In 1998, Burke was convicted of murdering Edmund Huotari and Larry Nelson, and for committing arson to conceal the bodies. Burke appealed the criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of murder and one count of arson. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in denying Burke's request for DNA testing under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-15 and the court did not err in summarily denying his post-conviction relief application. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of Burke's application for post-conviction relief. View "Burke v. North Dakota" on Justia Law