Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A board of county commissioners may not restrict an elected county sheriff's authority to fire an employee hired by the sheriff except through personnel policies that do not usurp or significantly interfere with the sheriff's authority to fire employee's in the sheriff's office. Gary Schwartzenberger, in his official capacity as the sheriff of McKenzie County, appealed a district court order denying his petition for a writ to prohibit the McKenzie County Board of County Commissioners from taking disciplinary action up to and including termination against a deputy in the sheriff's office. THe North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the Board did not have authority to discipline a deputy in the sheriff's office, and reversed the order denying a writ of prohibition. View "Schwartzenberger v. McKenzie County Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Tricia Taylor appeals from orders denying her motions to quash contempt and for immediate release from incarceration. The orders stemmed from custody disputes between Taylor, Aarin Nygaard and Terrance Stanley, the two fathers of her minor children. Nygaard and Stanley were eventually awarded primary residential responsibility for their respective children, and Taylor was granted supervised visitation. Taylor fled with both of the minor children to the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation in South Dakota, and Nygaard and Stanley have not had any contact with the children since. Taylor was found in contempt for violating multiple district court orders for refusing to return the minor children to their fathers. In addition, Taylor was arrested and pled guilty to class C felony parental kidnapping and was incarcerated in North Dakota. In 2015, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court entered a temporary order awarding custody of the children to Taylor's sister on the reservation. Shortly before Taylor was scheduled to be released on parole on the parental kidnapping conviction, the district court issued interlocutory orders in both custody cases finding her in contempt for refusing to return the children to their fathers and issued warrants for her arrest. Immediately upon her release from incarceration on the kidnapping conviction, Taylor was served with the arrest warrants and remained in custody for contempt. At a hearing on the interlocutory orders, Taylor argued she did not have the ability to return the minor children to their fathers. A judicial referee rejected the argument and found Taylor was "voluntarily electing to continue to withhold" the minor children from their fathers. Taylor requested the district court to review the referee's orders, and in April 2016 the court adopted and affirmed the referee's orders. Taylor did not appeal. Taylor has not returned the children to their fathers and remained incarcerated. Taylor moved to quash the contempt orders and for immediate release from imprisonment, claiming she had been incarcerated for contempt longer than the six months authorized under N.D.C.C. 27-10-01.4(1)(b). Nygaard and Stanley argued the orders were not appealable. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding the judicial referee's orders and the district court's orders on request for review did not contain an express finding that imprisonment for six months under N.D.C.C. 27-10-01.4(1)(b) would be ineffectual to terminate Taylor's continuing contempt. Without that finding, Taylor could not be imprisoned for more than six months under the court's most recent orders finding her in contempt. View "Nygaard v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order granting Steven Helm's motion to dismiss a criminal prosecution against him for refusing to submit to a warrantless urine test incident to arrest. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State could not criminally prosecute Helm for refusing to submit to the warrantless urine test incident to arrest. View "North Dakota v. Helm" on Justia Law

A broadly-worded agreement in one contract can require arbitration of disputes arising under related contracts. To determine whether an arbitration provision in one agreement should be applied to other agreements, in addition to the relationship between two or more agreements and their subject matter, courts consider whether the parties to the separate agreements are identical, whether the underlying agreements were executed closely in time, and the breadth of the language used in the arbitration clause. The question whether a particular dispute is arbitrable usually is for judicial determination unless the parties agree otherwise. Gary and Glory Kramlich appealed, and Robert and Susan Hale cross-appealed, an order dismissing the Kramlichs' lawsuit against the Hales and various entities, and directing the parties to submit their disputes to binding arbitration. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court correctly ordered arbitration of the Kramlichs' claims relating to the operating agreement for Somerset-Minot, LLC, but erred in ordering arbitration of claims relating to Somerset Court Partnership. View "Kramlich v. Hale" on Justia Law

M.S. was subject to an existing one-year order for less restrictive treatment relating to his mental illness. On June 8, 2017, before the order expired, the Southeast Human Service Center filed a petition for continuing treatment under N.D.C.C. 25-03.1-23, alleging M.S. required further psychiatric care and was unwilling to adhere to treatment on his own. On June 15, 2017, M.S. filed a demand for change of judge under N.D.C.C. 29-15-21. Judge Daniel Narum, as presiding judge, denied his request, finding that Judge Bradley Cruff was assigned to M.S.'s case in 2013 and had made rulings in the matter. After a hearing, the district court found M.S. required continuing treatment and ordered that M.S.'s less restrictive treatment be extended for one year, to June 2018. M.S. did not challenge any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law related to the order for less restrictive treatment. The sole issue on appeal was whether Judge Narum erred in denying his demand for a change of judge. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not err in denying M.S.'s demand for a change of judge. View "Interest of M.S." on Justia Law

Kari Conrad appealed an order dismissing without prejudice her application for an order requiring the Ward County recorder to remove a lis pendens filed by Wilbur Wilkinson against a tract of land in Minot and from an order denying her motion for reconsideration. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Wilkinson was not authorized to file the lis pendens in an action that did not raise a claim affecting the title to real property and Conrad was entitled to have the Ward County recorder cancel the lis pendens under N.D.C.C. 32-04-24. View "Conrad v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Robert Pulkrabek appealed the district court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. Pulkrabek argued the district court erred when it did not tell the jury it had to unanimously agree on which theory of theft it believed he committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a jury was not required to unanimously agree upon which action the defendant committed under the subsections of N.D.C.C. 12.1.-23-02. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law

The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota certified questions of North Dakota law to the North Dakota Supreme Court involving Dawn Vail's right to bring a common law tort action against S/L Services, Inc., for personal injuries she sustained while working for S/L Services. The certified questions and the parties' arguments involved issues about employer immunity and an employee's exclusive or dual remedy for injuries occurring during the course of employment under North Dakota’s statutory provisions for workforce safety and insurance. The Supreme Court concluded the exclusive remedy provisions of North Dakota’s workers' compensation laws did not preclude Vail's tort action against S/L Services under provisions authorizing the action for willfully misrepresenting to Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") the amount of payroll upon which a premium is based, or for willfully failing to secure workers' compensation coverage for employees. View "Vail v. S/L Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Bremer Bank, the Public Service Commission ("PSC"), Auto-Owners Insurance Company, and Curt Amundson appealed a judgment in a grain warehouse insolvency proceeding involving Grand Forks Bean Company after the district court appointed the PSC as trustee for the sale of dry edible beans from Grand Forks Bean's warehouse, denied Bremer's motion to intervene in the insolvency proceeding, and ordered distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the beans to growers determined to be noncredit-sale receiptholders. We conclude the district court did not err in construing applicable statutory provisions for insolvency proceedings and in applying those provisions. The PSC initially issued a trustee's report concluding all nine bean growers were noncredit-sale receiptholders entitled to participate in the trust fund proceeds and recommending payment of $652,747.92 to those receiptholders based on a December 2014 insolvency date and a market price of $23 per hundredweight on that date. The court ruled eight of the bean growers were noncredit-sale receiptholders entitled to participate in the insolvency trust fund proceeds. The court concluded one grower, Amundson, had a credit-sale contract with Grand Forks Bean under N.D.C.C. 60-04-01(2) and was not entitled to participate in the trust fund proceeds. The court also determined the date of Grand Forks Bean's insolvency under N.D.C.C. 60-04-02 was October 15, 2013, and the market price for beans on that date was $38 per hundredweight. The court determined three growers were entitled to a different price per hundredweight for their beans because they had cash claims with Grand Forks Bean for an agreed price. The court further concluded the PSC was entitled to its costs and expenses under N.D.C.C. sections 60-04-03.1, 60-04-09, and 60-04-10. The court ordered disbursement of the trust fund proceeds and thereafter issued an order denying Auto-Owner's motion for post-hearing relief. The district court denied without prejudice Bremer's motion to intervene to litigate the priority of its security interest, but allowed Bremer to participate in the proceeding "to the full extent provided to any other receiptholder/claimant." Amundson argued the district court erred in concluding he had a credit-sale contract with Grand Forks Bean because the definition of a credit-sale contract in N.D.C.C. 60-02-19.1 controls and required signatures by both the grower and the warehouseman to be a credit-sale contract. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Public Service Commission v. Grand Forks Bean Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Absent clear error, a district court's valuation of a decedent's estate will not be reversed on appeal. Plaintiffs Anne Fahey, Timothy Fife and Richard D. Fife appealed a district court judgment in their action seeking cancellation of a quit claim deed from their deceased mother Marianne Fife to their deceased father Richard A. Fife relating to North Dakota minerals. Anne Fahey's aunt Carole Hill informed her about the circumstances surrounding Marianne’s conveyance of her mineral interest. Hill witnessed Richard Fife present a quit claim deed for Marianne to sign, and Richard held Marianne's hand to help her sign her name on the deed. Hill believed Marianne was not competent at the time to sign the deed, and was not informed as to what she was signing. Plaintiffs sued Joanne Fife, individually and as personal representative of Richard Fife's estate, claiming their mother lacked capacity to execute the deed because she was under medication to treat her pain. Plaintiffs also claimed their father exercised undue influence over their mother when she signed the deed. The trial court rescinded the deed but concluded that under North Dakota's intestacy laws in effect at Marianne’s death, the minerals passed to Richard A. Fife. The court concluded Richard A. Fife's surviving spouse Joanne Fife owned the minerals. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fahey v. Fife" on Justia Law