Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A.K. appealed a disorderly conduct restraining order issued against her. Jennifer Gooss, on behalf of her minor daughter, filed the petition alleging A.K., also a minor, engaged in disorderly conduct. A temporary restraining order was issued, and a hearing was held. After a 30-minute hearing, the district court issued a disorderly conduct restraining order against A.K.The District Court of Mercer County, South Central Judicial District, conducted the hearing. A.K. argued on appeal that she was denied due process because the court's time limit on the hearing deprived her of a reasonable opportunity to rebut the evidence and testify on her own behalf. She also contended that the district court's findings were not supported by the evidence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court noted that a district court's decision to grant a restraining order or conduct a hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court found that A.K. did not object to the 30-minute time limit at the outset of the hearing and did not request additional time. The court determined that the district court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by setting the time limitations and that A.K. had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner.The Supreme Court also reviewed the district court's findings and concluded that sufficient evidence supported the finding that A.K.'s conduct affected the minor petitioner's safety, security, or privacy. The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the disorderly conduct restraining order. View "Gooss v. A.K." on Justia Law

Samantha Davis filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Richard Romanyshyn in April 2024. The district court granted a temporary restraining order and outlined the hearing procedure, which limited the hearing to 15 minutes unless a full evidentiary hearing was requested. The procedure required the requesting party to file a notice of witnesses and a summary of their anticipated testimony three days before the hearing. If no request was made, evidence had to be presented by affidavit, and affiants had to be available for cross-examination if notified 24 hours before the hearing.Davis did not request a full evidentiary hearing but filed a notice to cross-examine Romanyshyn. Romanyshyn argued he requested a full evidentiary hearing and filed a notice to cross-examine through his answer, but the district court found he did not follow the proper procedure. The hearing was limited to arguments from Davis’s counsel and Romanyshyn, along with Davis’s petition and Romanyshyn’s affidavit. The district court granted Davis a two-year restraining order, later amended to include the parties’ two minor children, conflicting with an existing parental responsibility order.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court deprived Romanyshyn of a full evidentiary hearing as required by N.D.C.C. § 12.1–31.2–01(1). The court found that the district court relied solely on inadmissible hearsay in Davis’s petition and Romanyshyn’s affidavit, without allowing cross-examination or presenting admissible evidence. The Supreme Court reversed the restraining order and remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing. The court also noted that any restraining order issued on remand must not conflict with the existing parental responsibility order. View "Davis v. Romanyshyn" on Justia Law

Christine Berger and Brian Repnow were in a decade-long relationship but never married. During their relationship, they accumulated various properties and businesses. In August 2021, Berger filed a lawsuit seeking partition, conversion, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment, requesting an equitable division of their accumulated real and personal property or monetary damages. Repnow claimed sole ownership of the properties and requested denial of Berger's claims.The District Court of Mercer, South Central Judicial District, held a two-day bench trial in October 2023. The court granted Berger's partition claim for the Expansion Drive property, awarding her sole ownership, and determined that the other properties and vehicles were solely owned by Repnow. The court also granted Berger's unjust enrichment claim, awarding her $64,000 for her contributions to Repnow's properties, and denied the claims of conversion and promissory estoppel. The court awarded the Dream Girls Boutique business to Repnow and Powerhouse Nutrition to Berger.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the parties intended to share ownership of the Expansion Drive property and the award of Powerhouse Nutrition to Berger. However, it reversed the decision to award 100% of the Expansion Drive property to Berger, stating that the district court should have considered the parties' respective ownership interests and made an equitable division. The court also found that the district court failed to complete the unjust enrichment analysis and adequately explain the $64,000 award.The North Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case for the district court to determine the parties' respective ownership interests in the Expansion Drive property and make an award consistent with those interests. The court also instructed the district court to complete the unjust enrichment analysis and provide a clear explanation for the $64,000 award if necessary. View "Berger v. Repnow" on Justia Law

Joshua McCleary was charged with multiple counts of theft, burglary, criminal mischief, and conspiracy related to a series of thefts between December 2020 and January 2021. At the time of these charges, McCleary was already incarcerated for previous convictions. He filed a request for a speedy trial under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), which requires a trial within ninety days unless good cause is shown for a delay. McCleary was paroled but remained in custody due to failure to post bail on the new charges.The District Court of Barnes County denied McCleary's motions to dismiss, stating that the UMDDA's ninety-day period no longer applied once he was released from the state penitentiary on parole. McCleary conditionally pled guilty to seven counts, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss. The court entered a judgment noting the conditional nature of the pleas.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. McCleary argued that his case should have been brought to trial within the ninety-day period under the UMDDA because he remained in state custody. The court held that the UMDDA did not apply once McCleary was paroled, as he was no longer serving a prison sentence but was a detainee due to not posting bail. The court also found that McCleary waived any procedural defects regarding the habitual offender status by stipulating that the statutory requirements were met. Lastly, the court determined that the judgment did not need correction to specify the conditional nature of the plea, as it was clear on the face of the judgment.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. McCleary" on Justia Law

On December 19, 2023, Lee Meiers was arrested for driving under the influence. The arresting officer read Meiers the implied consent advisory and conducted a chemical breath test, which showed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The officer completed and certified a report and notice form, printed and signed the test record and checklist, and provided copies to Meiers and the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT). However, the officer did not certify the test record and checklist before forwarding it to the NDDOT.Meiers requested an administrative hearing, where he objected to the admission of the uncertified test record and checklist, arguing that it was not certified as required by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1, and thus the NDDOT lacked authority to suspend his driving privileges. The hearing officer overruled the objection, admitted the test record and checklist, and suspended Meiers’s driving privileges for 180 days. Meiers appealed to the District Court of Mountrail County, which reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding that a certified copy of the test record and checklist was required to invoke the NDDOT’s authority.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the requirement in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-03.1(4) for the test record and checklist to be certified is not a basic and mandatory provision that impacts the NDDOT’s authority to suspend a driver’s privileges. The court emphasized that the certification requirement is for evidentiary purposes and can be accomplished through other means. Therefore, the NDDOT had the authority to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges despite the lack of certification on the test record and checklist. The Supreme Court reinstated the NDDOT’s decision to suspend Meiers’s driving privileges. View "Meiers v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Oak Reile, a delivery driver for Core Mark International, Inc., suffered a cervical spine fracture after falling off a loading ramp at work. He underwent surgery and rehabilitation, resulting in quadriplegia and other severe conditions. Reile later sought workers' compensation benefits for a psychological condition, specifically adjustment disorder with depressed mood, which he claimed was caused by his physical injury. Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) denied his claim, leading Reile to request reconsideration and an independent medical review.The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) affirmed WSI's denial, concluding that while Reile's psychological condition resulted from his work injury, it did not meet the requirements of the North Dakota Administrative Code § 92-01-02-02.5. This regulation required the psychological condition to be the "physiological product" of the physical injury. The ALJ found that Reile's condition was compensable under the statute but not under the administrative rule. The district court upheld the ALJ's decision, leading to Reile's appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that WSI exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating N.D. Admin. Code § 92-01-02-02.5. The court held that the regulation was invalid because it imposed additional burdens not present in the statute, such as requiring proof of a physiological nexus and excluding certain aspects of physical injuries from consideration. The court found that the ALJ's decision to deny benefits based on the invalid regulation was not in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that Reile was entitled to benefits under the applicable statute. View "Reile v. WSI" on Justia Law

Nicholas Caspers pled guilty to murder in November 2010 and was sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration with seven years suspended and five years of probation. He was released on probation in August 2017. The State filed four petitions to revoke his probation. The first petition was denied in February 2020, with the court amending his probation to include mandatory participation in a sobriety program. The second petition was denied in September 2020, but the court amended the judgment to include sixty days of incarceration. The third petition was granted in November 2022, revoking his probation and resentencing him to thirty months of probation. The fourth petition was granted in October 2023, revoking his probation and sentencing him to serve the seven suspended years of incarceration.Caspers moved for correction of his sentence in February 2024, arguing that the September 2020 and November 2022 judgments were illegal, and that the October 2023 judgment should be vacated. The district court granted his motion in part, awarding him credit for thirty days, but denied the remaining requests for relief.On appeal, Caspers argued that the October 2023 judgment was illegal because it followed an impermissible third revocation of his probation. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the September 2020 proceedings did not result in a revocation of probation but rather an intermediate sanction. The court concluded that Caspers was not subject to an impermissible third revocation of probation in October 2023 and affirmed the district court's order. View "State v. Caspers" on Justia Law

Jason Thompson was charged with two counts of terrorizing, one count of criminal trespass, and one count of disorderly conduct due to his actions at two bars in Mandan. During the trial, the State presented video evidence from an officer’s body camera to demonstrate Thompson’s intent. Thompson objected to the video evidence, arguing it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and violated rules against character evidence and hearsay. The district court overruled his objections and admitted the video evidence. The jury found Thompson guilty on all counts, and he appealed.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Bonnie L. Storbakken, conducted the trial. Thompson’s objections to the video evidence were overruled, and the jury convicted him on all charges. Thompson appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the video evidence, limiting his cross-examination of the victims, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video evidence, as it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also found that the district court did not err in limiting Thompson’s cross-examination of the victims, as the questions were either irrelevant or had been sufficiently answered. Finally, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdicts. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Kyle Woodman was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition in Stark County, North Dakota, in April 2022. A jury trial was held in September 2023, and Woodman was found guilty on all counts. In January 2024, the district court sentenced him to twenty years in prison for count one (with all but five years suspended for ten years), and seven and a half years each for counts two and three, with all sentences running consecutively.Woodman appealed, arguing that the district court committed obvious error by not including the essential element that the crimes occurred in North Dakota in the jury instructions, that the prosecutor committed obvious error during closing arguments by creating evidence, incorporating personal beliefs, and vouching for witnesses, and that the district court relied on an impermissible factor (a pending charge) in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It concluded that Woodman failed to establish obvious error regarding the jury instructions, as the instructions, when read together, adequately informed the jury that the offenses had to occur in Stark County, North Dakota. The court also found that Woodman did not demonstrate that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments constituted obvious error affecting his substantial rights, as the jury was instructed to rely on their own recollection of the evidence and disregard any unsupported statements by the attorneys. Lastly, the court determined that Woodman did not show that the district court substantially relied on the pending charge in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Woodman" on Justia Law

Randall Moe executed a Last Will and Testament in 1989, shortly after ending a relationship with Cynthia Almer. The will included provisions to bequeath all his property to Almer, with a contingent bequest to his daughter, Amanda Miller, if Almer predeceased him. Moe also designated Almer as the guardian for Miller and the personal representative of his estate. Moe passed away in July 2022, and Miller was appointed as the personal representative of his estate. Almer later filed a petition for formal probate and to set aside Miller’s appointment, while Miller sought to reform the will to reflect Moe’s intent to pass his estate to her.The District Court of Williams County held a bench trial and found the will valid and enforceable but concluded it was affected by a mistake of law or fact. The court reformed the will to state that Almer would hold Moe’s property in trust for Miller if she was a minor at the time of his death, otherwise, the property would go to Miller outright. The court also appointed Miller as the personal representative of the estate.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its findings. The Supreme Court concluded that the will was not inconsistent and that the extrinsic evidence considered by the district court did not relate to Moe’s intent at the time he executed the will. The Supreme Court held that the district court misapplied the law by considering post-execution evidence unrelated to Moe’s intent when he executed the will. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment reforming Moe’s will. View "Estate of Moe" on Justia Law