Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several landowners whose land abuts navigable waters appealed the grant of summary judgments in favor of the State. The judgment held that the State owned the mineral interests under the land in the shore zone. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that indeed the State owned the mineral interests under the shore zone of navigable waters since becoming a State in 1889 under the equal footing doctrine, and that N.D. Const. art. X, sec. 18, precludes construing the language now codified in N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's mineral interests under the shore zone to the upland owners. "If the chain of title reflects the State granted its equal footing interests to upland owners, those upland owners take to the low watermark, subject to the public trust doctrine and except where the deed provides otherwise. If the State is not in the chain of title for the upland owner's property, the anti-gift clause precludes construing N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's equal footing interests to upland owners." View "Reep v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to hold Kayla Rath in contempt and denying his request that the district court judge recuse himself from the case. The parties were divorced in January 2013 and Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility for the couple's two minor children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time to occur at the Family Safety Center while he was undergoing a domestic violence offender treatment program and a psychological evaluation, after which he could move for review of his parenting time schedule. A "no contact" order was in place during the divorce proceedings. Less than two months after entry of the divorce judgment, Mark brought a motion for an order to show cause why Kayla should not be held in contempt for violating provisions of the divorce judgment. Mark submitted two affidavits claiming Kayla violated various parenting provisions in the judgment. Kayla denied the allegations. Toward the end of the hearing, Mark requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. The court denied the contempt motion, finding Kayla "did not intentionally disobey the terms of the Judgment and . . . her conduct did not constitute contempt." The court also denied the request for recusal, reasoning Mark "stated no specific instances or evidence to support his claim of lack of impartiality." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law

Tydise Peltier appealed an amended criminal judgment of conviction and a district court judgment dismissing in part his application for post-conviction relief and amending the criminal judgment and sentence in his case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err when it amended the judgment of conviction and resentenced Peltier. Furthermore, the Court held that Peltier's probationary sentence on the failure-to-register charge was appropriately categorized as mandatory. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court judgments. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Warren Parsons appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund ("WSI") decision that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Parsons applied for workers' compensation benefits from WSI, alleging he sustained an injury to his left shoulder and neck while working for Ames Construction. He claimed he developed pain at the base of his neck and into his left shoulder from hitting the seat belt repeatedly while driving the dump truck on rough roads. Parsons argued his cervical spine and left shoulder injuries were "compensable injuries" by law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded WSI erred in determining Parsons' injury was not a compensable injury and in denying his claim for benefits. View "Parsons v. WSI" on Justia Law

Gary Houim appealed an order denying his motion to modify residential responsibility for a child he had with Clara Ann Thompson (f/k/a Engh). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Houim's affidavit and supporting documents established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Morton County Social Service Board v. Houim" on Justia Law

Albert Krueger appealed trial court orders finding him in contempt of court for willfully failing to pay his spousal support obligation to Shirley Krueger and denying his motion to modify the divorce judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in refusing to eliminate the spousal support obligation, did not err in finding Krueger in contempt of court for failing to pay his court-ordered spousal support, and did not err in admitting evidence regarding alleged physical limitations imposed upon his ability to work. View "Krueger v. Krueger" on Justia Law

Billy Joe Kinsella appealed a district court judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2010, a jury convicted Kinsella of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, S.B. Evidence at the trial included testimony from the investigating officer, the sexual assault nurse examiner ("SANE"), North Dakota State Crime Laboratory analysts, and DNA evidence taken from bed sheets located in the Kinsella residence. One of the crime laboratory analysts testified the bed sheet tested positive for semen and that DNA analysis revealed the semen matched Kinsella's DNA profile. S.B. testified she did not remember the sexual assault or the sexual assault examination conducted by the SANE nurse. Kinsella appealed his conviction to this Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. In his application for post-conviction relief, Kinsella argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding that Kinsella failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Kinsella v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A series of burglaries occurred over several months in Bismarck involving more than $65,000 in stolen property and property damage. D.O. is a juvenile thought to be involved with the crimes. While investigating D.O.'s involvement, Detective Matthew Fullerton performed a probation search of D.O.'s residence, obtained information from a tipster and a confidential informant, searched publicly available information on D.O.'s Facebook page and performed a "cell tower dump" showing cell phone activity in the area of the burglaries at the time they occurred. D.O. appealed the juvenile court's order granting the State's motion to transfer D.O.'s case to the district court and denying D.O.'s suppression motion. D.O. argued law enforcement offered false or misleading testimony in support of the search warrant, that insufficient probable cause existed to justify the search warrant's issuance, that the juvenile court relied on out-of-court statements in violation of his statutory right to confrontation and that his case was inappropriately transferred to the district court. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of D.O." on Justia Law

Eugene and Charlene Guthmiller appealed a district court judgment finding an option agreement should have been honored, allowing Guthmiller Farms, LLP and Jeremy Guthmiller to each purchase by contract for deed an undivided one-half interest in specified lands. The Guthmillers argued on appeal: (1) that Guthmiller Farms did not have standing to pursue the action; (2) that consideration was invalid for the option contract; (3) that exercise of the option constituted a counteroffer; and (4) that the district court erred in considering evidence not disclosed prior to the hearing. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Guthmiller Farms v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

Esteban Dominguez appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Dominguez argued his attempted murder conviction as illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-16-01(1)(b) could not be the underlying charge for an attempt offense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) is not a cognizable offense, because attempt requires an intent to complete the commission of the underlying crime and a majority of the Court has held that murder under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life results in an unintentional death. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Dominguez v. North Dakota" on Justia Law