Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mark Klein appealed a judgment following a jury verdict awarding him compensatory damages resulting from a vehicular accident. Klein and Sarah Luithle were in a vehicular accident in 2011 (Luithle died in 2014 from unrelated causes). The case was tried before a jury in August 2018. Prior to trial, Luithle’s Estate moved the district court to exclude two of Klein’s witnesses, Reg Gibbs and Scott Stradley, Ph.D., arguing their testimony and opinions did not meet the requirements of N.D.R.Ev. 702 and 703. The court denied the motion, stating the arguments raised by Luithle’s Estate went to the credibility of the experts, not to the admissibility of their testimony. On the second day of trial, Bill Rosen, M.D., testified as Klein’s medical expert witness. After Dr. Rosen testified, Luithle’s Estate moved to strike part of Dr. Rosen’s testimony, arguing it did not meet the reasonable degree of medical certainty standard and was therefore speculative and inadmissible. After acknowledging Klein’s continuing objection, the court struck all of Dr. Rosen’s testimony. The court also excluded proposed testimony from Gibbs and Stradley because it held there was a lack of foundation for these experts to testify without Dr. Rosen’s testimony. The jury determined Klein was 25% at fault and Luithle was 75% at fault for the accident that caused Klein’s injuries. On appeal, Klein argued the district court incorrectly struck the entirety of his expert witness’s testimony from the record and improperly excluded testimony from two other expert witnesses under N.D.R.Ev. 702 and 703. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined Klein’s substantial rights were affected because his medical expert’s testimony was completely struck and Klein was significantly limited in proving both past and future damages. Additionally, the matter of medical expenses was a major issue at trial, and exclusion of Klein’s only medical expert left him to rely solely on the medical witness called by Luithle’s Estate. Therefore, the Court remanded for a new trial. View "Klein v. Estate of Luithle" on Justia Law

Clinton Mullin and Valrena Nelson appealed a judgment and order denying a new trial. The judgment was entered after a jury found Mullin liable for a breach of trust and awarded Richard Twete damages for the loss of use and value of real property, and after the court in equitable proceedings imposed a constructive trust requiring the return of the real property, awarded Twete monetary damages jointly and severally against Mullin and Nelson as restitution, and granted attorney fees. In 2009, Twete owned a farm near Grenora, North Dakota, and Mullin owned a farm about 100 miles away in Montana. Twete and Mullin met in the fall of 2009 when Twete hired Mullin to harvest. In September 2012, Twete executed quitclaim deeds conveying his farmland and minerals in Divide County and Williams County to Mullin. Twete also sold his farm machinery and equipment to Mullin. The transaction was documented in written contracts and deeds. In June 2013, defendants Bill Seerup and Hurley Oil Properties, Inc., purchased the minerals from Mullin for $600,000. In July 2013, Mullin executed deeds granting Nelson and Mullin a joint tenancy in the farmland, excluding minerals. In August 2014, Mullin and Nelson entered into a mortgage with defendant Farm Credit Services. In 2015, Twete commenced this action against Mullin and others, seeking among other things a monetary award and the rescission of certain real property transfers, and alleging claims for quiet title, undue influence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, malicious prosecution, constructive trust, breach of contract, and conversion or trespass to chattels. Twete also sought equitable relief from defendants Farm Credit, Seerup, and Hurley Oil. Mullin counterclaimed against Twete for quiet title, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and conversion and trespass to chattel. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed all but the award of attorney fees: the Court could not discern under what legal authority the district court relied on to award fees. The matter was thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Twete v. Mullin, et al." on Justia Law

Matthew Lindseth appealed an amended judgment ordering him to pay Alaina Minyard $1,216 per month in child support. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in determining Lindseth’s income for child support purposes. View "Minyard v. Lindseth" on Justia Law

Dametrian Welch appealed a district court order and amended criminal judgment. In the original judgment, count one incorrectly stated that Welch pled guilty to murder. Although Welch was originally charged with murder, under the plea agreement, the State amended the charge to “Criminal Facilitation to Murder” in exchange for Welch’s guilty plea to both criminal facilitation to murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Welch requested the court correct its clerical error in the original judgment by amending the title of the offense in count one from “murder” to “criminal facilitation” and listing the facilitation statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-02, instead of the murder statute. The State agreed that the facilitation statute could be added but should not replace the murder statute because the charge was facilitation of murder. The State argued the district court did not abuse its discretion in describing the offense of conviction as “Criminal Facilitation to Murder.” Finding no reason to disturb the district court’s order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Welch" on Justia Law

James Burden appealed district court orders summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and denying his motion for relief from that dismissal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court applied the wrong standard in dismissing Burden’s application on the pleadings and that he was not given the required time to respond to a dismissal by summary judgment. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Burden v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Adam Lizakowski appealed a district court judgment and post-judgment orders awarding Tonia Lizakowski marital property, primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children, and attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court erroneously excluded property from the marital estate. The Court affirmed in all other respects, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Lizakowski v. Lizakowski" on Justia Law

Michael Wills appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Wills argued the district court erred in denying his motion because the arresting deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe further criminal activity justified detaining and searching the vehicle after the stop ended. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the deputy needed renewed articulable suspicion to continue detention of the vehicle and passengers; the record did not support the continued seizure and search of the vehicle after the deputy ended the traffic stop. The Court therefore reversed judgment and remanded to permit Wills to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Wills" on Justia Law

Spencer Norton appealed a judgment entered after the district court denied his motion to dismiss and accepted his conditional guilty plea to the charge of failure to register as an offender against children. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-15(3) imposed a statutory duty on Norton to register, and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Norton" on Justia Law

George Lyons appealed from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Lyons argued there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the district court committed obvious error by not declaring a mistrial after the jury heard prohibited testimony. The North Dakota Supreme Court, after review of the trial court record, determined that record reflected that at the request of defense counsel the court struck the neighbor’s later nonresponsive testimony and gave a curative instruction. Lyons did not request a mistrial, but indicated he was satisfied with the court’s admonishment. The Supreme Court was thus satisfied the trial court did not deviate from established precedent in striking the responses and giving curative instructions. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial on its own motion did not constitute a clear deviation from applicable law. View "North Dakota v. Lyons" on Justia Law

W.C. appealed a district court order denying his petition to adjudicate paternity and seeking a determination of residential responsibility, decision making responsibility, parenting time, and child support. W.C. alleges he was the father of a child born to J.H. In November 2013. W.C. and J.H. began a romantic relationship in late 2012 while J.H was married to T.H. The couple divorced in June 2013. Because J.H. gave birth to the child within 300 days of the divorce, T.H. was the presumed father under North Dakota law. The child’s birth certificate did not list a father. In 2018, after the statute of limitations for challenging a presumed father expired, W.C. commenced an action to adjudicate paternity of the child, seeking a determination of residential responsibility, decision making responsibility, parenting time, and child support. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, J.H. filed a motion to quash discovery, arguing W.C.’s requests for financial and medical records were not relevant, onerous, grossly invasive, and even if provided could not establish facts to support the relief sought in the petition. The district court granted the motion to quash discovery, finding medical and financial records were not relevant. The court thereafter held a hearing on the paternity claim, hearing testimony from W.C., J.H., and T.H. Based on testimony and interrogatory answers from T.H. the district court found W.C. failed to disprove the parent-child relationship. The district court also found W.C. failed to establish T.H. and J.H. did not cohabitate nor engage in a sexual relationship during the probable time of conception. The district court denied W.C.’s petition. W.C. argued on appeal of the district court order that the court abused its discretion in granting a motion quashing discovery. Finding no error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "W.C. v. J.H., et al." on Justia Law