Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven and Connie Falkenstein appealed a district court judgment dismissing their claims against Jon W. Dill and Credico, Inc. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Falkensteins received medical services from Medcenter One but failed to pay the total balance due. The debt was assigned to Credico, Inc. for collection. Dill, an in-house attorney and employee of Credico, Inc., communicated with the Falkensteins regarding the debt. In March 2009, judgment was entered in favor of Credico, Inc. for the amount of the Falkensteins' debt, including interest. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no error with the district court's dismissal and affirmed. View "Falkenstein v. Dill" on Justia Law

Robert Heier appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") decision affirming the termination of his employment with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding Heier was unlawfully disciplined multiple times for one instance of misconduct, and the Court ordered Heier reinstated with backpay. View "Heier v. N.D. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. " on Justia Law

J.R. and S.R. appealed the trial court's order dismissing their petition to adopt S.E. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred by dismissing J.R. and S.R.'s petition for adoption, and the Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to hold a hearing under N.D.C.C. 14-15-11. View "Matter of S.E." on Justia Law

James Mickelson appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. He argued WSI erred in deciding he did not suffer a compensable injury. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded WSI misapplied the definition of a compensable injury, and the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mickelson v. Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law

Melissa Rudnick, formerly known as Melissa Nelson, appealed an amended judgment modifying residential responsibility of the minor child she has with Kirk Rode. Rudnick argued the district court erred in entering an ex parte order, the court erred in finding Rode established a prima facie case justifying modification of primary residential responsibility, and the court's decision to modify residential responsibility was clearly erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding Rode failed to meet his burden of proof under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(6) for a modification of residential responsibility. View "Rudnick v. Rode" on Justia Law

Cheryl Rae Schulte appealed an amended divorce judgment eliminating Kenneth Kramer's obligations to pay her spousal support, to provide health insurance, and to pay non-covered medical costs. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the award of health insurance was spousal support and not property division; the Court reversed, concluding the trial court clearly erred in granting Kramer's motion to eliminate his spousal support obligations; and the Court reversed for the trial court to consider whether to grant Schulte's request for attorney's fees. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Schulte v. Kramer" on Justia Law

Bruce G. Harris appealed a district court judgment awarding Linda A. Smestad $30,025 plus interest on the theory of unjust enrichment. Harris argued the district court erred by: (1) deciding the issue remanded without notifying him or holding a hearing, (2) considering unjust enrichment because Smestad's complaint did not include an unjust enrichment claim and (3) finding Smestad proved unjust enrichment. Upon review,the Supreme Court found no error and affirmed. View "Smestad v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Kruckenberg appealed a the trial court order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. Defendant was charged with delivery of methamphetamine. The State filed a notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding, alleging Defendant had previously been convicted of three other methamphetamine-related felonies. The State filed an amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding and a jury trial was held. The amended notice was the same in all respects as the original notice, except it excluded one of the previously alleged prior convictions. Defendant was subsequently convicted of delivery of methamphetamine. Following the trial, a bifurcated hearing was held. At the hearing, the trial court first found Defendant was a habitual offender and then sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Then Defendant applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred because it did not address his claims of an illegal sentence resulting from alleged defects in the amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding, and the court erred by not determining he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the alleged defects in the amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court's order denying the application for post-conviction relief to allow the trial court to make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to address Defendant's arguments that his sentence was imposed in violation of North Dakota's habitual offender statute and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. View "Kruckenberg v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.A. appealed a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to his daughter, A.W. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the court's findings that J.A. abandoned the child, that the child was deprived, and that the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of A.W." on Justia Law

Cornel Kilber appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Grand Forks Public School District No. 1 ("District") decision to discharge him from his teaching position with the District for conduct unbecoming the position of a teacher. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kilber was not denied a fair discharge hearing and that any claimed procedural errors that occurred during the hearing were harmless. View "Kilber v. Grand Forks Public School District" on Justia Law