Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

P.S. appealed a district court’s judgment denying his petition to be discharged from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. P.S. argued the court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior and that by concluding he had to remain in a clinical setting, the court exceeded its authority under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by ordering a specific treatment program—a role expressly assigned to the executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding the court did not clearly err in determining P.S. had serious difficulty controlling his behavior, but did exceed its authority as established in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by determining a specific treatment. View "Interest of P.S." on Justia Law

G.L.D. appeals from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. In 1996, G.L.D. was incarcerated after a conviction for gross sexual imposition. As his release date approached, the State petitioned to have G.L.D. committed to the North Dakota State Hospital. In 2007, G.L.D. was committed as a sexually dangerous individual (SDI). Since then, G.L.D. has requested discharge hearings and appealed the denial of those requests. In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing. The hearing was held on September 26, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the district court denied G.L.D.’s request for discharge. G.L.D. timely appealed. He argued the district court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Under the clear-and-convincing standard of review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded such evidence supported the district court’s finding the State showed a nexus between G.L.D.’s antisocial personality disorder and his inability to control his behavior. The district court’s finding that G.L.D. has serious difficulty controlling his behavior was thus not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of G.L.D." on Justia Law

Alvin Brown appealed an order revoking probation. In 2020, Brown pled guilty to two counts of endangerment of a child, a class C felony. The district court sentenced him to a term of incarceration followed by two years of supervised probation. In July 2022, Brown’s probation officer petitioned for revocation of his probation, alleging a series of violations including failing to report to the probation office, failing to attend treatment, using illegal substances, drinking alcohol, and leaving the re-entry center while intoxicated. At the August 2022 hearing, Brown admitted to committing all five violations. On appeal of the revocation, Brown argued the district court erred by revoking his probation without giving him notice of the allegations against him and by making inadequate findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Jorge Sanchez was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20- 03(2)(c), sexual contact—victim unaware. Sanchez argued on appeal the district court erred by allowing hearsay evidence at trial. Sanchez also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Rocket Dogs K-9 Aquatics & Wellness Center, LLC (“Rocket Dogs”) appealed the dismissal of its action against Derheim, Inc., dba My Aquatic Services, and Troy Derheim (“Derheim”), with prejudice. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting Derheim’s motion to enforce settlement and in deciding questions of fact, rather than submitting the issue to a jury, on whether Rocket Dogs authorized its previous counsel to settle its claims. The court’s findings the parties entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement were not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the agreement. View "Rocket Dogs K-9 Aquatics & Wellness Center v. Derheim, et al." on Justia Law

David Kutcka, Tammy Dejno, as personal representative of Austin Dejno’s estate, and Tammy Dejno, as wrongful death plaintiff (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appealed the dismissal of their negligence claims against Gateway Building Systems (“Gateway”). Plaintiffs argued the district court erred in concluding Gateway was Kutcka’s and Austin Dejno’s statutory employer entitling Gateway to immunity from suit under the workers’ compensation act. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Gateway, the general contractor, was not the statutory employer of its subcontractor’s employees, Kutcka and Dejno, entitling it to immunity under the exclusive remedy provisions of N.D.C.C. § 65-04-28, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Kutcka, et al. v. Gateway Building Systems, et al." on Justia Law

Wayne Anderson appealed, and Renee Anderson cross-appealed the parties' divorce judgment. The parties raised issues concerning the district court’s marital estate valuation and distribution. Wayne also argued the court erred when it ordered him to pay attorney fees as a sanction for discovery violations and contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the contempt decision because Wayne did not timely appeal that order. The Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the award of attorney fees. The Court reversed the district court’s property valuation, concluding the court erred as a matter of law when it valued a capital loss carryover for tax purposes and when it excluded a portion of the parties’ assets from the marital estate. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider its property distribution. View "Anderson v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Family”) appealed after the district court granted summary judgment to Nodak Insurance Company (“Nodak”) and denied, in part, summary judgment to Farm Family. This case arose from an April 6, 2019 motor vehicle accident. Samuel Hamilton was the son of Bruce and Diana Hamilton. At the time of the April 2019 accident at issue, Samuel was a resident of North Dakota, and his parents were residents of Montana. Before the accident, Farm Family issued an automobile insurance policy to Bruce and Diana with an effective policy period of October 19, 2018 to April 19, 2019. The policy insured a 2011 pickup truck. After moving to Montana, the Hamiltons obtained an insurance policy from Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (“Mountain West”) that also insured the 2011 pickup truck with a term running from December 2, 2018 to June 2, 2019. In April 2019, Samuel was driving the insured 2011 pickup truck in Williams County, North Dakota. Samuel reportedly ran a stop sign while intoxicated and struck another vehicle; H.W. was seriously injured and A.M. was killed. Nodak insured the vehicle H.W. and A M. occupied at the time of the accident. Nodak filed suit seeking a declaration Farm Family’s automobile policy was in effect at the time of the April 2019 accident, Farm Family’s policy could not be retroactively cancelled, and the vehicle driven by the insureds’ son was not an “underinsured motor vehicle” under North Dakota law. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the automobile policy Farm Family issued to its insureds had not “ceased” under the policy language and remained in effect at the time of the April 2019 motor vehicle accident. View "Nodak Ins. Co. v. Farm Family Casualty Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law

Michael Knudsen appealed a district court order determining Knudsen did not establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility and denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and from a district court order denying his motion to disqualify Tessa Falcon’s counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Falcon v. Knudsen, et al." on Justia Law

T.L.B. appealed a district court judgment changing the surname of her child from T.L.B.’s surname to a hyphenated surname under N.D.C.C. § 14- 20-57(7). The child’s hyphenated name combined her father’s and mother’s surnames. On appeal, T.L.B. argued the district court: (1) erroneously found she changed her surname after her marriage; (2) erred because it hyphenated H.R.B’s name on the erroneous basis that she shared a name with no one else in her household; (3) erred because it did not consider the factors for changing a name under N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (4) erred because it did not consider T.L.B.’s emotional injury as an injury for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 32-28-02(3); (5) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because it had insufficient best interests of the child evidence; and (6) erred in hyphenating H.R.B.’s surname because the suggestion to hyphenate the child’s surname was raised for the first time at the evidentiary proceeding. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "E.R.J. v. T.L.B." on Justia Law