Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thomas Pinkney appealed a district court order granting summary dismissal of his post-conviction relief application. In 2015, Pinkney pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, and was sentenced. He subsequently filed for post-conviction relief on two occasions, in addition to filing multiple motions in his criminal case, which were denied. In April 2020, Pinkney filed the underlying application for post-conviction relief in the district court, alleging as grounds for relief: newly discovered evidence-DNA testing, actual innocence, and incompetence to plead guilty. In his application Pinkney requested to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to a jury trial. The court scheduled a hearing on his application for July 24, 2020. The State answered opposing his application and moved the court for summary dismissal of his application. The district court subsequently entered orders denying his motion for continuance and granting the State’s motion for summary dismissal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after the trial court record, Pinkney failed to meet his minimal burden to provide at least some competent evidence to support his claims in response to the State’s summary dismissal motion. "Instead, his filings merely suggest that his investigation is ongoing, particularly regarding his mental competence to plead guilty. Pinkney has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. We therefore conclude the district court did not err in granting the State’s motion for summary disposition." View "Pinkney v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a district court order affirming the North Dakota Department of Human Services’ determination that Harold Ring was ineligible for Medicaid. In Ring v. North Dakota Department of Human Services, 2020 ND 217, 950 N.W.2d 142 (“Ring I”), the North Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case for the district court to determine whether a party should be substituted due to Ring’s death, which occurred before the court entered its order. On remand, the district court found substitution of a party was unwarranted and entered an order dismissing the case. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal order. View "Ring v. NDDHS" on Justia Law

Daniel and Debra Bearce appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Yellowstone Energy Development, LLC. In June 2006, representatives of a business entity that would eventually become Yellowstone went to the home of Daniel and Debra Bearce seeking to purchase 170 acres of land owned by the Bearces. Yellowstone successfully secured an exclusive option to purchase the land. In 2008, Yellowstone exercised its option to purchase the land, and the parties entered into a contract for deed. In 2009, Yellowstone and the Bearces modified the contract for deed to alter some of the payment terms. Both the original contract for deed and the 2009 modified contract for deed included the following term providing for the payment of a portion of the purchase price with “shares” of a contemplated ethanol plant. Yellowstone subsequently abandoned its plan to build an ethanol plant on the Bearces’ land. Yellowstone then negotiated a long-term lease with a third party to build an oil train loading facility on the Bearces’ land. In July 2010, Yellowstone sent a letter to the Bearces advising them $100,000 in “value” would be issued despite Yellowstone’s abandonment of the plan to build an ethanol plant. In December 2011, the Yellowstone Board of Directors approved a multiplier of three units per $1 invested for individuals who had provided initial cash investment in Yellowstone. The Bearces’ interest in Yellowstone was not given the 3:1 multiplier. Units representing ownership interest in Yellowstone were allocated and placed on a ledger sometime after December 4, 2012. After receiving a “unit ledger” indicating their interest in Yellowstone would not receive the 3:1 multiplier, the Bearces objected. Despite the objection, Yellowstone refused to apply the 3:1 multiplier to the Bearces’ interest in Yellowstone. The Bearces sued Yellowstone, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On appeal, the Bearces argued the district court erred in concluding Yellowstone did not owe them a fiduciary duty and that, if a duty was owed, the Yellowstone Board of Directors did not breach its fiduciary duty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Bearce v. Yellowstone Energy Development" on Justia Law

Tyson Lerfald appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify his child support obligation and the parenting time provisions of the amended judgment. Lerfald argued the district court erred by denying his motion to modify the parenting time provisions, contending the parenting time provisions required him to maintain a valid driver’s license and be solely responsible for parenting time transportation, which caused his parenting time to be contingent on having a valid driver’s license. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court’s finding that Lerfald failed to establish a material change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not err in denying Lerfald’s motion. View "Lerfald v. Lerfald" on Justia Law

Yaasin Isxaaq appealed a district court order denying his applications for post-conviction relief, in which he sought to withdraw his guilty pleas in three underlying criminal cases. Isxaaq was charged with theft in June 2016, and pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct later that month. Isxaaq was later charged with misdemeanor sexual assault in February 2017 and pleaded guilty in March 2017. Isxaaq was then charged with misdemeanor theft, and pleaded guilty in January 2020. All three charges were class B misdemeanors. Isxaaq was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pending deportation proceedings, on January 29, 2020. In all three cases, Isxaaq argued his guilty pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made because he had not been properly advised on adverse immigration consequences, and because an interpreter was not used when he communicated with his attorneys. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in denying Isxaaq’s applications for post-conviction relief. View "Isxaaq v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) appealed a district court judgment reversing an administrative order sustaining a WSI order denying Bruce Bahmiller’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment, concluding the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that Bahmiller failed to file a timely claim for benefits within one year of his work injury was not supported by the weight of the evidence. View "Bahmiller v. WSI, et. al." on Justia Law

Rebecca Benjamin appealed an order denying her motions for interim relief and to modify primary residential responsibility. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in determining Benjamin had not established a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing. View "Klundt v. Benjamin" on Justia Law

Dennis Roehrich appealed after a jury found him guilty of harassment. In May 2019, the City of Fargo charged Roehrich with harassment, alleging Roehrich made numerous vulgar and harassing telephone calls and left similarly offensive voicemail messages for several members of the Fargo Police Department over a two-year period and continued contacting members of the police department after receiving a cease and desist letter. Roerich argued on appeal his conviction should have been reversed because Fargo’s harassment ordinance, Fargo Municipal Code section 10-0322, was unconstitutionally vague and his speech was protected by the First Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the harassment ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and Roehrich’s conduct was not protected. View "City of Fargo v. Roehrich" on Justia Law

Michael and Mindy Zepeda appealed a district court judgment dismissing their claims for failure to prosecute and the denial of their post-judgment request to alter or amend the judgment. On November 25, 2013, Michael and Mindy Zepeda commenced a personal injury action against Adam and Mason Cool by service of summons and complaint. The personal injury action arose from a December 2011 assault by the Cools on Michael Zepeda resulting in Michael Zepeda sustaining injuries. Over six years later, on January 7, 2020, the Zepedas filed the summons and complaint. On July 17, 2020, the Zepedas filed a motion for reconsideration arguing the district court erred in dismissing the action because they appropriately pursued their claim under the circumstances. The court denied the motion as lacking merit after determining the request for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) was untimely and there was no other sufficient basis to warrant reconsideration. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Zepedas’ claims for failure to prosecute. View "Zepeda, et al. v. Cool, et al." on Justia Law

In July 2018, Leanne Hoff Bilger sued Joshua Bilger for legal separation. Bilger executed an admission of service, acknowledging he received the summons and complaint, settlement agreement and an exhibit relating to division of property and debts. The parties executed the settlement agreement which stated Bilger was a member of the armed forces. The district court issued an order for judgment, and the clerk of court entered a judgment granting the parties a legal separation. Joshua appealed a district court order denying his motion to dismiss and vacate the judgment for legal separation, arguing the court erred in finding the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act did not apply. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the Act applied; however, Bilger failed to invoke the protections of the Act. View "Bilger v. Bilger" on Justia Law