Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Williams County and Williams County Commission (collectively, “County”) appealed a judgment in favor of Twin City Technical LLC, Three Horns Energy, LLC, Prairie of the South LLC, and Irish Oil & Gas, Inc. (collectively, “Companies”) on their claim of unjust enrichment and adverse orders granting a bench trial, compelling discovery, and awarding expenses and attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the County was barred from relitigating unjust enrichment and raising the defenses of waiver and unclean hands; and the district court did not err in finding laches did not bar the Companies’ unjust enrichment claim, awarding prejudgment interest beginning from September 2015, ordering a bench trial, granting the Companies’ motion to compel, and awarding expenses and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed, but the Supreme Court modified the order awarding expenses and attorney’s fees, subtracting the legal research expense. View "Twin City Technical, et al. v. Williams Cty, et al." on Justia Law

ason Canerdy appealed a district court order denying his motion for contempt and his motion to modify primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. Jason and Samantha Canerdy were divorced in June 2020. The parties had two minor children. The judgment awarded Samantha primary residential responsibility and Jason reasonable parenting time. In April 2021, Jason filed a motion to modify the judgment to be awarded primary residential responsibility of the minor children, or in the alternative, be awarded equal residential responsibility. Jason also filed a motion for contempt for Samantha's interference with his parenting time. The district court denied Jason's motion for contempt and his motion to modify the judgment for primary residential responsibility without an evidentiary hearing. The court found that there was no evidence that Samantha disobeyed the judgment, and that she had not committed contempt of court. Further, the court found no persistent and willful denial of parenting time, no evidence that the children were in any danger, and no evidence that primary residential responsibility changed. The court stated that Jason did not take responsibility for his own inaction in regard to not spending as much time with his minor children because he did not regularly attend or participate in their dance activities. The court noted that Jason would seek to make up his parenting time when the dance activities occur on his scheduled weekend. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Jason established a prima facie case for modification and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Canerdy v. Canerdy, et al." on Justia Law

Mackenzy Bazile appealed after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. Bazile argued the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Bazile also argued the court erred by failing to make findings on the record regarding Bazile’s motion for mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bazile" on Justia Law

Thomas Kaspari appealed an amended judgment awarding spousal support to Jean Kaspari entered after the first appeal in this case. The district court ordered Thomas to pay $7,000 per month in spousal support to Jean until he turned 65 years old. Thomas argued the district court erred in the amount of spousal support it awarded, claiming: (1) the court failed to properly consider the distribution of the parties’ assets and debts; (2) the evidence did not support a finding of a need for support; and (3) the court improperly attempted to equalize the parties’ incomes. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined that although the district court made findings about the Ruff-Fischer factors and considered Jean's need for spousal support and Thomas' ability to pay, the court failed to adequately explain its reason for awarding spousal support of $7,000 per month when Jean did not show a need for that amount. "The court was not required to provide a detailed calculation of Jean Kaspari’s need for spousal support, but it was required to make sufficient findings to provide a discernible basis for its decision. Without further explanation from the district court, the amount appears to be arbitrary or an attempt to equalize the parties’ incomes." Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s spousal support decision and remanded for that court to make further findings explaining its decision or to reconsider the amount of support. View "Kaspari v. Kaspari" on Justia Law

Komikka Gregory appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief. In 2018, a jury found Gregory not guilty of the charge of murder, but guilty of a charge of manslaughter. In August 2021, Gregory filed an application for post-conviction relief requesting her conviction be set aside and she be granted a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed an answer which included a request for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09. The district court deferred ruling on the motion for summary disposition and ordered Gregory to submit, within 30 days, declarations and other admissible evidence in support of her petition and opposition to the motion. With no response from Gregory, the court granted summary disposition. Gregory argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the district court erred in granting summary disposition because the State failed to make a separate motion. The State agreed that the matter should have been reversed and remanded based on the North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chase v. North Dakota, 966 N.W.2d 557. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Gregory v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund (“NDIRF”) appealed a judgment and orders granting Lance Hagen’s amended petition for a writ of mandamus requiring NDIRF to disclose documents under the open records law. NDIRF argued: (1) the amended petition was untimely; (2) NDIRF was not a public entity subject to open records requests; and (3) the documents sought were protected from disclosure under North Dakota court rules. Hagen cross appealed, arguing the district court erred by not requiring NDIRF to disclose all of the documents he sought and by denying him costs and attorney’s fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, concluding the amended petition was timely, NDIRF was a public entity for purposes of the open records law, and the records sought were not exempt from disclosure. The Court reversed the part of the judgment and orders excluding records from disclosure, and remanded to the district court to review in camera those previously excluded records and those records identified in Appellant’s Brief to determine whether they were exempt from disclosure under the potential liability exception in N.D.C.C. 44-04-19.1(8). The Court affirmed the denial of costs and attorney’s fees. View "Hagen v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund" on Justia Law

Dr. Jacob Schmitz appealed a district court judgment ordering: (1) the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to disclose a limited portion of a recording from an April 2020 executive session of the Board; (2) denying the disclosure of any portion of a May 2020 executive session; and (3) the denial of his motion for attorney’s fees. In June 2020, Dr. Schmitz commenced this lawsuit, alleging that the Board violated the law regarding access to public records and meetings. The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to address Dr. Schmitz’s allegation that his right to due process was violated by the in-camera review because it was not properly preserved; reversed the denial of attorney’s fees; and remanded for additional portions of the executive sessions to be disclosed to Dr. Schmitz and for a determination of an appropriate award of attorney’s fees. View "Schmitz v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners" on Justia Law

Brian Johnson, Rodger Johnson, Lyle Johnson, New Partnership and Nor-Agra, Inc. (Defendants) appealed an amended judgment dissolving the Johnson Farms partnership. Defendants argued the district court erred in its valuation and distribution of the partnership’s assets. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sproule, et al. v. Johnson, et al." on Justia Law

Corey Fleck appealed after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property by deception. In March 2019 Fleck sold cattle at Kist Livestock in Mandan. The cattle were subject to liens. Kist issued a check for $10,039, naming Fleck and several lienholders as payees on the check. A friend of Fleck subsequently brought the check to a bank in Elgin, where the check was cashed and the funds deposited into Fleck’s bank account. After the funds had been deposited in Fleck’s account, the bank determined the endorsements from the lienholders were fraudulent and withdrew the money from Fleck’s account. Kist Livestock subsequently reissued a check, proper endorsements were obtained, and the money was distributed by cashier’s checks under an agreement between Fleck and the lienholder payees. Fleck received $400 from the reissued check under the agreement. In November 2019, the State charged Fleck with one count of theft of property by deception, a class B felony. In September 2020, Fleck moved to dismiss the matter, contending that because the only conduct alleged by the State had not occurred in Morton County, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant’s alleged acts. The court denied his motion. After the State rested its case, Fleck moved for an acquittal, arguing the State had not established that any crime had occurred in Morton County, failed to prove he had knowingly obtained property by deception, failed to prove the property was property of the lienholders, or failed to prove the property or services stolen exceeded $10,000 in value. The court denied his motion. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Fleck" on Justia Law

Neil McGinnis appealed a district court’s second amended criminal judgments entered after the court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in case 08-2017-CR-00721 and five years’ imprisonment in case 08-2016-CR-01827, both to run concurrently. In 2017, McGinnis pled guilty to burglary and theft of property in the case ending in 00721. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on both counts with all but 33 days suspended and was placed on probation for a period of two years. He then pled guilty to a second theft of property offense two months later in the case ending in 01827. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with all but 53 days suspended and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He argued his sentence was illegal because the court resentenced him to a length of time that exceeded his original sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in 08-2016- CR-01827. The Court reversed and remanded the second amended criminal judgment entered in 08-2017-CR-00721, finding that the sentence was illegal because McGinnis was re-sentenced for a duration exceeding the suspended sentence imposed in his judgment of conviction. View "North Dakota v. McGinnis" on Justia Law