Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in North Dakota Supreme Court
Kukla v. Kukla
Wayne Kukla appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court granted Roberta ("Bobbi") Marie Kukla's motion to amend and vacate a 2004 divorce judgment. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting Bobbi Kukla's motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. Therefore the amended judgment was reversed and the 2004 divorce judgment was reinstated. View "Kukla v. Kukla" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law, North Dakota Supreme Court
Kershaw v. WSI
Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") order, which affirmed WSI's order denying Ronald Kershaw's work injury claim. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in reversing the administrative law judge's order. The ALJ's decision was reinstated. View "Kershaw v. WSI" on Justia Law
Hillerson v. Bismarck Public Schools
Shealeen Hillerson, as "best friend" to T.D., a minor child, and T.D. appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their negligence lawsuit against the Missouri Valley Family YMCA for injuries T.D. suffered in a near-drowning accident while participating in a YMCA summer program. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the waiver of liability signed by T.D.'s mother was ambiguous, a question of fact existed as to the intent of the parties. Accordingly, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
View "Hillerson v. Bismarck Public Schools" on Justia Law
Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong
North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion.
View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law
North Dakota v. Whitman
Richard Whitman appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Whitman argued the district court erred in allowing into evidence statements he made to law enforcement in violation of his Miranda rights, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy. The Supreme Court on its own motion reversed the conspiracy charge brought pursuant to N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) as an uncognizable offense.
View "North Dakota v. Whitman" on Justia Law
North Dakota v. Samshal
Travis Samshal appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in excluding evidence about threatening statements the victim allegedly made to Samshal. The case was remanded for a new trial.
View "North Dakota v. Samshal" on Justia Law
North Dakota v. Howard
Leron Howard appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy. Howard argued the district court erred in directing a multi-county jury panel, and in denying his amended motion for change of venue. He also argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding no error and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Howard" on Justia Law
North Dakota v. Arot
Korsiba Arot was charged in district court with three counts of gross sexual imposition for incidents that occurred in the summer of 2011, the latest of which occurred in August, 2011. Arot moved to dismiss the criminal charges arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Arot was not eighteen at the time of the incidents. The district court found the State failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Arot was eighteen at the time of the incidents. The charges were dismissed. The State appealed the dismissal of charges. Finding no error in the dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed.
View "North Dakota v. Arot" on Justia Law
North Dakota ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber
In February 2003, the City of Marion brought a nuisance action against Larry Alber, seeking the removal and proper storage of abandoned vehicles on his property. In that case, the district court found the vehicles were a public nuisance and ordered they either be removed or be lawfully maintained. In October 2012, the City brought a contempt proceeding against Alber, alleging his property failed to conform with the 2003 judgment. Alber testified at a contempt hearing, claiming he believed the prior order had been satisfied in 2003 when he crushed almost 60 vehicles and hired an attorney to send the City a letter to ensure compliance. He testified there was no response from the City until he received a letter in June 2012 asking him to clean up his property. After receiving the letter, Alber informed the town board members he had suffered a rotator cuff injury and his doctor had not yet cleared him for physical work, so he would be unable to do the necessary clean-up until August. He testified that on August 25 he contacted a Jamestown company to rent a crusher and that during the fall, four semi-loads of cars were removed from his property and crushed. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Alber in contempt, the Supreme Court affirmed.
View "North Dakota ex rel. City of Marion v. Alber" on Justia Law
Rustad v. Rustad
Rick Rustad appealed a district court judgment granting him a divorce from Svetlana Rustad, awarding primary residential responsibility of the parties' minor child to Svetlana Rustad, distributing their marital property, and awarding Svetlana Rustad rehabilitative spousal support. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirme the portion of the judgment awarding spousal support and distributing the marital property, but reversed and remanded on primary residential responsibility.
View "Rustad v. Rustad" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law, North Dakota Supreme Court