Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed a judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial after a jury found in favor of plaintiffs on their claims of breach of contract, conversion, deceit, defamation, and unlawful interference with business. The district court quieted title in plaintiff Seven Star Holdings. Defendants argued: (1) the court erred by failing to decide whether a joint venture existed and in quieting title; (2) there was insufficient evidence supporting the jury verdict on the claims of breach of contract, conversion, defamation, and unlawful interference with business; and (3) the verdict violated the law of comparative fault. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding defendants waived their arguments on joint venture, quiet title, breach of contract, and comparative fault; and the court did not abuse its discretion in determining the verdict was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence and rejecting the defendants’ new trial motion. View "Kluver, et al. v. SGJ Holdings, et al." on Justia Law

Jonathan Linner was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child. He appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded no structural error occurred when the district court closed the courtroom for limited voir dire, Linner was not prejudiced or denied due process by the State’s voir dire, and the court did not err by ordering no contact with his minor children as a condition of the sentence. View "North Dakota v. Linner" on Justia Law

Secura Supreme Insurance Company appealed a judgment ordering Secura to indemnify Scott Differding for damages awarded against him in a tort case. The district court, deciding cross motions for summary judgment, held Secura’s policy did not insure Differding. The court nonetheless held Secura had to indemnify Differding under theories of waiver and estoppel because it assumed his defense in the tort case without reserving the right to deny coverage. The North Dakota Supreme Court held Differding could not invoke waiver and estoppel to create personal coverage under an insurance policy to which he was not a party and had no right to enforce. The district court’s judgment was therefore reversed. View "Secura Supreme Ins. Co., et al. v. Differding, et al." on Justia Law

Brandon Tompkins was convicted for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and actual physical control (“APC”). Tompkins argued on appeal of the convictions that the district court erred by providing jury instructions merging the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and refusal to submit to a chemical test, which allowed the jury to convict Tompkins without unanimously agreeing Tompkins committed a singular criminal act. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor were separate offenses from the offense of refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the jury instructions improperly merged the offenses together. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Tompkins" on Justia Law

Brandon Grant appealed a third amended judgment after a jury found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and three counts of aggravated assault. Grant argued the State’s peremptory strike of a potential juror was improper and the district court erred by denying the Batson challenge. He further argued insufficient evidence supported the conviction on counts one, two, four, and five. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Grant" on Justia Law

Senske Rentals, LLC, appeals a district court’s order affirming the City of Grand Forks Special Assessment Commission’s decision to specially assess property for street improvements. Senske argues the Special Assessment Commission acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and legally unreasonable manner by failing to comply with the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 40-23-07 to determine the assessment to its properties. Finding Senske has not met its burden to show the assessments were invalid or that the Commission failed to comply with the statutory requirements under N.D.C.C. § 40-23-07, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Senske Rentals, et al. v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

Cassandra Goetz appealed a corrected amended judgment awarding her and Joshua Goetz equal residential responsibility of their minor children and awarding Joshua primary decision making responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined further findings were warranted. The Court remanded the case with instructions that the district court make specific findings regarding whether the material change in circumstances resulted in a general decline or adversely affected the children. View "Goetz v. Goetz, et al." on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to modify child support. He argued the district court erred when it applied the North Dakota Supreme Court’s vexatious litigant pre-filing order, when it allowed the State to file a response to his motion after the deadline, and when it denied his motion without a hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Rath v. Rath, et al." on Justia Law

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, on behalf of the State of North Dakota (“the State”), sought a supervisory writ to vacate a district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-12. The injunction was granted in Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc., et al. v. Wrigley, et al., Burleigh Co. Court No. 2022-CV- 01608. The State argued the district court abused its discretion in granting the injunction because Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic (“RRWC”) and the other plaintiffs failed to prove: (1) they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) they would suffer irreparable injury; (3) there would be harm to other interested parties; and (4) the effect on the public interest weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that while the regulation of abortion was within the authority of the legislature under the North Dakota Constitution, RRWC demonstrated likely success on the merits that there was a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute was not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny. The Court granted the requested review, denied the relief requested in the petition, and left in place the order granting a preliminary injunction. View "Wrigley v. Romanick, et al." on Justia Law

Dacotah Ryder Hanson was found guilty by jury of leaving the scene of an accident involving death and manslaughter. In November 2018, a fatal motor vehicle rollover occurred near Tioga, North Dakota. Officers responded and observed a pickup truck lying on its passenger’s side in the middle of a field. Officers also observed a deceased male lying outside the passenger’s side door of the truck. The truck was registered to Hanson. At trial, law enforcement testified Hanson’s cell phone and pack of cigarettes were located in a field near the truck. Further evidence was presented, including handprints and other markings on the roof and driver’s side door, showing the driver had climbed out of the truck by the driver’s side. The markings led from the truck to the direction of Hanson’s residence. During closing argument, the State commented on Hanson’s lack of an explanation for his theory of the case. Part of Hanson’s defense theory suggested he was not the driver. The State asked how Hanson could have possibly extricated himself from underneath someone who is pinned under a truck. The defense objected on the grounds that the State was “coming dangerously close to saying the defendant needed to testify.” The objection was overruled. Hanson argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the State commenting on his right not to testify created reversible error. Hanson also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal convictions. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hanson" on Justia Law