Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Richard Dahm appealed a district court judgment affirming the decision of the Stark County Board of County Commissioners to deny his application for a zoning change and a preliminary plat approval. After review of the decision, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the County Board's decision to deny the application and institute a six-month appearance prohibition was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. View "Dahm v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Andrew Canfield appealed district court judgments entered upon conviction of four drug related offenses. He also appealed another order denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his dormitory room. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence in the record to make meaningful appellate review of the issues presented impossible. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Canfield" on Justia Law

B.B. appealed a trial court judgment establishing him as the father of the child, J.Z.T., and ordering him to reimburse the State for past support paid on behalf of the child and to pay future child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the state court's exercise of jurisdiction did not infringe on the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's right of self-government, as claimed by B.B. View "North Dakota v. B.B." on Justia Law

Kawo Otis Flah appealed a district court order mandating forfeiture of a 2002 Dodge Intrepid. Because Flah's due process rights were violated when the notice to appear was mailed to his residential address rather than at his in-custody address, the Supreme Court reversed the district court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. One 2002 Dodge Intrepid Automobile" on Justia Law

Wayne Otto appealed after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a camper. He entered a conditional plea of guilty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the camper fell within the scope of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to the warrantless search because law enforcement had probable cause to believe drugs were present in the vehicle. View "North Dakota v. Otto" on Justia Law

Sulejman Bahtiraj appealed a district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He was convicted after pleading guilty to a burglary charge. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in denying Bahtiraj's motion for post-conviction relief. Bahtiraj failed to prove the prejudice necessary to satisfy the second prong of the two-prong "Strickland" test. View "Bahtiraj v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Patrick Wagner appealed the grant of summary judgment that held as a matter of law that his property was burdened by either an express or an implied roadway easement, and that dismissed his claims for injunctive relief and damages against Crossland Construction Company, Inc., Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., M & K Hotshot & Trucking, Inc., and Titan Specialties, Ltd. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that, as a matter of law, the language in the warranty deed at issue in this case did not create or reserve an express easement. Furthermore, the Court concluded genuine issues of material fact precluded the district court from resolving whether an implied easement exists. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Wagner v. Crossland Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Earl and Harold Van Sickle appealed, and Hallmark & Associates, Inc., Frank Celeste, William R. Austin, Phoenix Energy, Bobby Lankford, and Earskine Williams, and Missouri Breaks, LLC, cross-appealed an amended judgment that held Missouri Breaks liable to the Van Sickles for unpaid pre-bankruptcy confirmation royalties and awarding the Van Sickles interest and attorney's fees. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in holding Missouri Breaks liable under state law for pre-bankruptcy confirmation royalties owed to the Van Sickles. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Van Sickles attorney's fees and did not err in awarding them simple interest under the statute. View "Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Margaret Oakland appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment in favor of Bonnie Bowman, and Evan and Dayna Del Val. Oakland argued on appeal that her claim was not time-barred and equitable tolling should have applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in determining that Oakland's claim was brought after the statute of limitations expired and that equitable tolling did not apply. View "Oakland v. Bowman" on Justia Law

Anna Holmes appealed a district court order denying an evidentiary hearing on her motion for change of custody. Because the Supreme Court concluded Holmes met her burden of establishing a prima facie case justifying modification, it reversed the district court order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Wald v. Holmes" on Justia Law