Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, the City of Johnston charged Appellant Matthew Johnston with driving under the influence after police arrested him for driving his bicycle into a parked vehicle. Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing a bicycle (moved under human power) is not a "vehicle" under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01. The district court denied Appellant's motion, and after a hearing to reconsider the motion, the court again denied it. Appellant conditionally pled guilty to the charge, reserving his right to have this Court review whether a bicycle is considered a "vehicle" for the purposes of driving under the influence. The City of Lincoln responded that the legislature intended a bicycle to be considered a "vehicle" under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01 because N.D.C.C. 39-07-01 provides: "For the purposes of chapters 39-08 through 39-13, a bicycle or a ridden animal must be deemed a vehicle." The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. View "City of Lincoln v. Johnston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Susan Hale appealed a district court summary judgment that dismissed their nuisance and governmental takings claims against Ward County and the City of Minot. The Hales own property on what is otherwise agricultural land approximately one mile southeast of a shooting range used for training Minot area local, state and federal law enforcement officers. Mr. Hale brought suit against Ward County and Minot alleging the law enforcement shooting range was a private and public nuisance and the shooting range devalued his property, resulting in a governmental taking. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. "When viewed in the light most favorable to the Hales, the maps, photographs and additional evidence raise[d] a genuine issue whether the terrain surrounding the shooting range prevents bullets from exiting the shooting range." The Court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the Hales' public nuisance claim, but affirmed in all other respects. View "Hale v. Ward County" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Timothy and Elizabeth Lamb appealed a summary judgment cancelling their contract for deed with EVI Columbus, LLC ("EVI") and awarding EVI its costs incurred in cancelling the contract for deed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Lambs' motion to amend their answer to include counterclaims against EVI and refusing to construe the Lambs' affirmative defenses as counterclaims; the trial court properly granted EVI's motion for summary judgment awarding a $150 personal judgment against the Lambs to EVI for its costs and disbursements; and the Court denied EVI's request for double costs and attorney's fees related to the appeal. View "EVI Columbus, LLC v. Lamb" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Hale appealed a district court order dismissing his action against the State of North Dakota, the Governor of North Dakota in his official capacity, the Director of the Department of Commerce in his official capacity and the Department of Commerce; the Minot City Council members in their official capacities and the City of Minot; and the Minot Area Development Corporation (MADC) for a declaration that the state and the federal constitutions prohibit the disbursement of public funds to private persons, associations, or corporations for economic development. Plaintiff primarily argued the "gift clause" provisions of N.D. Const. art. X, section 18 prohibit the State entities and the Minot defendants from using public funds to loan, give credit or make donations to individuals, associations, or corporations for economic development. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded statutes authorizing the State entities and the Minot defendants to implement economic development programs constitute an enterprise for a public purpose under N.D. Const. art. X, section 18 and are not unconstitutional. View "Hale v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Randy Holkesvig appealed a district court order that modified an order enjoining him from filing certain further lawsuits without leave of court and denying his request for leave to commence four new ones. In 2008, Holkesvig was charged with stalking and violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. After pleading guilty to the stalking charge, Holkesvig sued Peter Welte, Meredith Larson, and Chris Smith, individuals involved in the criminal proceedings against Holkesvig. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, awarding them costs and disbursements. Holkesvig appealed, and the decision was affirmed. During the pendency of the appeal, Holkesvig filed additional pleadings and documents with the district court. The district court issued an order awarding the defendants $1,000 in attorney fees and prohibiting Holkesvig from filing further documents with the court, except to the extent required to resume or continue his appeal. Despite the district court's order, Holkesvig continued to file documents with the district court, resulting in Welte, Larson, and Smith filing a motion to strike the documents and to impose sanctions against Holkesvig for violating the court's order. In March 2011, without holding a hearing, the district court found Holkesvig in contempt of court, struck his additional documents, and ordered him to pay the defendants a $1,000 remedial sanction for the contempt. The March 2011 order also enjoined Holkesvig from commencing any new lawsuits based on the events related to his underlying criminal conviction without obtaining leave of court. Holkesvig appealed the March 2011 order, which was reversed and remanded because Holkesvig did not receive a hearing on the contempt motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court acted within its discretion in denying Holkesvig's motion to file four new lawsuits and in prohibiting him from filing certain further lawsuits. View "Holkesvig v. Welte" on Justia Law

Petitioner Larry Rubey appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's order was not based on an erroneous view of the law and the court did not err in concluding the State established by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey remained a sexually dangerous individual. View "In re Rubey" on Justia Law

Defendant Gale Bruce appealed a judgment entered after the district court convicted him of menacing under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-05. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the State presented sufficient evidence at trial for the court to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "North Dakota v. Bruce" on Justia Law

Defendant Rodney Chisholm appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the death of his brother, Donald Chisholm. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit evidence that the victim had (several years earlier) brandished a firearm in disputes with another Chisholm brother. View "North Dakota v. Chisholm" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Eide appealed a district court order that denied his motion to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) after the court discharged him from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and amended five criminal judgments against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the order to the extent the court did not amend three of the criminal judgments, and reversed the order to the extent the court amended five of the criminal judgments because the court did not provide Eide with notice before modifying his probation. On January 3, 2011, the court amended at Defendant's request one of the three judgments it did not amend on December 27, 2010, extending his probation for five years after the expiration of his original probationary period. Defendant remained on probation under the terms of the court's January 3, 2011 order. View "North Dakota v. Eide" on Justia Law

Defendant Manmohan Garg appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas in two criminal cases. He argued the district court erred by denying the motion because his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of the plea agreements as required by the United States Supreme Court decision in "Padilla v. Kentucky," 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). Defendant was a non-citizen living in the United States. In April 2011, he received notice from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement that his immigration status was being revoked and that he was subject to deportation as a result of two previous criminal convictions in Ward County, North Dakota. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Even assuming Defendant's attorney failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of the 2000 guilty plea, Defendant could not prove prejudice because he knew the guilty plea could result in deportation as a result of his involvement in prior criminal proceedings. Because Defendant failed to prove prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his 2000 guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Garg" on Justia Law