Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rickie Poseley appealed a decision made by the Homer Township Board of Supervisors. The district court dismissed her appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction because Poseley did not properly serve her notice of appeal on the township. Poseley argued that the court should overrule previous decisions that held personal delivery of service cannot be made by proxy or accomplished by mail.The District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge James T. Shockman, dismissed Poseley's appeal due to improper service. The court found that Poseley did not comply with the mandatory service requirements under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E), which require personal delivery to a member of the township's governing board. The court ruled that service by proxy or mail was not effective.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that compliance with N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) is mandatory to invoke the district court’s appellate jurisdiction. The court reiterated that service on a proxy not authorized by law or appointment, or service by mail, does not constitute personal delivery. The Supreme Court declined to overrule its precedent and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal of Poseley's appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). View "Poseley v. Homer Township" on Justia Law

Grant Grensteiner was charged with 17 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 18 counts of theft of property after a traffic stop led to the discovery of stolen firearms and other items. Grensteiner, a passenger in the vehicle, moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause to search the towed vehicle. The district court denied the motion, finding traffic violations justified the stop and probable cause extended to the towed vehicle due to a drug detection dog's alert.The district court held a jury trial, and Grensteiner moved for a judgment of acquittal after the State's case-in-chief, which was denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Grensteiner appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the traffic violations provided a lawful basis for the stop and the probable cause to search the towing vehicle extended to the towed vehicle. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Grensteiner's convictions, noting his control over the towed vehicle and the presence of stolen items. Additionally, the court concluded that the State's questioning of a detective did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or improperly shift the burden of proof to Grensteiner. The court emphasized that the jury instructions clearly stated the State's burden of proof and the defendant's presumption of innocence. View "State v. Grensteiner" on Justia Law

Alexander Gothberg called 911, reporting that his two-year-old child had possibly overdosed on fentanyl. When officers arrived, Gothberg opened his apartment door, holding the child, and described the situation while walking back into the apartment. The officers followed him inside, believing they were to assist the child. Gothberg explained that he had administered Narcan and performed CPR on the child, who then regained consciousness. The officers observed the apartment in disarray and found evidence of drug use. Gothberg consented to the officers looking around the apartment and disclosed the presence of a handgun and controlled substances.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Gothberg's motion to suppress evidence, finding that he had consented to the officers entering his apartment and that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied. The court also concluded that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines did not apply because no items were seized until a warrant was obtained. Gothberg conditionally pled guilty to six counts, including drug-related offenses and child endangerment, and appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Gothberg's affirmative conduct, such as calling 911, opening the door, and describing the situation, indicated consent for the officers to enter his apartment. The court also found that the officers' entry and search were justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by sufficient competent evidence and were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. View "State v. Gothberg" on Justia Law

Bradley Graff was charged with gross sexual imposition involving a victim under the age of 15. Before the trial, the district court ruled that Graff's prior convictions and status as a sex offender would be inadmissible. During the trial, the State's examination of a witness violated this order, leading to a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice.The State appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the charge with prejudice without properly determining whether the State acted in bad faith or through prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct and to consider lesser sanctions.On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct but did not act maliciously or attempt to delay the trial. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. Graff appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not dismissing the case with prejudice.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court's decision was based on a rational mental process and did not misinterpret or misapply the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, concluding that the district court did not act arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably. View "State v. Graff" on Justia Law

James Thesing was charged with domestic violence in November 2022 and released under a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the alleged victim. In March 2023, he was arrested for violating this order by initiating contact with the protected person while in custody. He was charged with two counts of violating the order, class A misdemeanors. In July 2023, the original domestic violence charge was dismissed, and the pre-dispositional order was terminated.Thesing filed a motion to dismiss one count in November 2023, arguing that the order only applied while he was released from custody. The District Court of Cass County denied the motion in December 2023, concluding that the order remained in effect after his arrest, was not contingent on release, and met constitutional requirements. Thesing entered a conditional guilty plea in February 2024, preserving his right to appeal, and the other count was dismissed. He appealed in March 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on statutory interpretation. The court found that the statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-02, unambiguously allowed the pre-dispositional order to remain in effect even after Thesing was taken back into custody. The court also noted that the order itself explicitly prohibited contact by any means and was to terminate only upon case disposition unless modified by the court.Thesing's argument that the order was a condition of release and did not apply while he was in custody was rejected. The court also dismissed his claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, noting that his brief lacked supporting arguments and citations. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Thesing" on Justia Law

Three petitioners sought to quiet title in mineral rights for parcels of land in McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. They argued that the state relinquished any claim to these mineral rights when a specific chapter of the North Dakota Century Code became effective in 2017. The petitioners claimed that the state abandoned the minerals, making them available for claim, and that they had claimed them by filing the lawsuit.In the McKenzie County case, the petitioners attempted service by publication on unknown persons. Wesley and Barbara Lindvig answered, claiming ownership of the mineral rights. The petitioners' motions to strike the Lindvigs' answer and for default judgment were denied. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and awarded attorney’s fees to the Lindvigs, concluding the action was frivolous. The petitioners appealed.In the Williams County case, the petitioners made similar claims. Wesley and Barbara Lindvig, along with Kenneth and Mary Schmidt, answered and moved to dismiss on several grounds, including improper service and lack of ownership by the petitioners. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and awarded attorney’s fees, finding the petition frivolous. The petitioners appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the cases and affirmed the dismissals, holding that the petitioners had no interest in the disputed minerals and could not maintain a quiet title action. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the Schmidts in the Williams County case. However, it reversed the award of attorney’s fees to the Lindvigs in both cases, remanding for further findings on whether the Lindvigs had a connection to the disputed mineral interests. View "Nelson v. Persons Unknown" on Justia Law

Three petitioners sought to quiet title in mineral rights for parcels of real property in McKenzie and Williams Counties, North Dakota. They argued that the state relinquished any claim to these mineral rights when a specific chapter of the North Dakota Century Code became effective in 2017. The petitioners claimed that the state abandoned the minerals, leaving them "up for grabs," and that they claimed the minerals by filing the lawsuit.In the McKenzie County District Court, the petitioners attempted service of process by publication on "unknown persons." Wesley and Barbara Lindvig answered, claiming ownership of the mineral rights. The petitioners' motions to strike the Lindvigs' answer and for default judgment were denied. The court granted the Lindvigs' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and awarded attorney’s fees, concluding the petitioners' action was frivolous. The petitioners appealed.In the Williams County District Court, the petitioners filed a similar lawsuit. Wesley and Barbara Lindvig, along with Kenneth and Mary Schmidt, answered and moved to dismiss on several grounds, including non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of ownership by the petitioners. The court granted the motion to dismiss and awarded attorney’s fees, finding the petition frivolous. The petitioners appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the cases and affirmed the dismissals, holding that the petitioners had no interest in the disputed minerals and could not maintain a quiet title action. The court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the Schmidts in the Williams County case. However, it reversed the award of attorney’s fees to the Lindvigs in both cases and remanded for further findings on whether the Lindvigs owned mineral interests subject to the petitioners' claims. View "Nelson v. Lindvig" on Justia Law

In 2014, Lorry Van Chase was convicted of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to forty years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Chase filed three applications for postconviction relief. In his first application, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a conflict of interest, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. His second application was dismissed as barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The third application was initially dismissed but later remanded for proper procedure.The District Court of Rolette County held an evidentiary hearing on Chase’s third application, which included claims of newly discovered evidence and improper jury contact. Chase conceded that his trial attorney had received the medical record before trial, thus it could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Regarding the jury contact, a juror testified that a uniformed person entered the jury room and stated that a unanimous decision was required. However, the juror could not definitively identify the person, and no other jurors corroborated the claim.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the medical record was not newly discovered evidence as it was available before the trial. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that the juror’s testimony about improper jury contact was not credible, noting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Chase’s application for postconviction relief based on these grounds. View "Chase v. State" on Justia Law

Jason Bott and Suzanne Bott married in 2008 and have two minor children. In November 2022, Suzanne initiated a divorce action. They entered into a stipulated settlement agreement, and a judgment reflecting the terms was entered in June 2023. Jason was awarded all real estate, including the marital home and a rental property, and was required to pay Suzanne $425,000 in two installments. Shortly after the judgment, Jason asked Suzanne to alter the terms due to financial difficulties. They signed a handwritten document without their attorneys' knowledge, agreeing that Suzanne would retain the marital home and Jason would not have to make the cash payment. Suzanne later rescinded the agreement, moved out, and filed a motion for contempt against Jason for not making the first payment.The District Court of Cavalier County denied Jason's motion to amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), finding that the parties intended to cancel the agreement. The court ordered Jason to make the cash payments as originally stipulated. Jason appealed, arguing the agreement was a valid contract and Suzanne failed to prove its rescission.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Jason's motion. The court noted that Jason did not argue the original stipulation was the result of mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, nor did he argue it was unconscionable. The court found that Jason did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the judgment. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Jason failed to show the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in denying his motion. View "Bott v. Bott" on Justia Law

Aksal Group, LLC filed an application with the Minot City Planning Department in July 2023 to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve a preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition, a new three-lot subdivision. The Kyle’s Addition plat, recorded in 1995, included a single block with a 24-foot public access easement. RMM Properties, which owns adjacent property, objected, arguing that Aksal Group needed their consent to vacate the public alley and that half of the alley would revert to them as the adjacent property owner.The Minot Planning Commission approved Aksal Group’s application under N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16, and the Minot City Council subsequently passed a resolution in September 2023 to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve the preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition. RMM Properties appealed this decision to the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, which affirmed Minot’s decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16 was the appropriate statute governing Aksal Group’s application. The court found that Minot’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and was supported by substantial evidence. The court also determined that the Kyle’s Addition plat dedicated a public access easement, not a fee title, and that the procedures under N.D.C.C. § 40-50.1-16 were correctly applied. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, upholding Minot’s decision to vacate the Kyle’s Addition plat and approve the preliminary plat for the Citizens Alley Addition. View "RMM Properties v. City of Minot" on Justia Law