Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bridget Medbery appealed after she conditionally pled guilty to actual physical control, reserving her right to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion to suppress. On November 21, 2019, officers responded to a report that a woman, later identified as Medbery, was unconscious in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked in a driveway. Medbery was ultimately arrested for and charged with actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. At a hearing in early 2020, Medbery unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence gathered from the stop, arguing she was unconstitutionally seized. To the North Dakota Supreme Court, Medbery argued the district court erred in concluding the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement applied, and that the trial court erred in finding law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the time she was seized. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of West Fargo v. Medbery" on Justia Law

Cody Michael Atkins had a lengthy history of proceedings before the district court and the North Dakota Supreme Court, most of which stemmed from his guilty plea to gross sexual imposition in 2015, and the series of appeals and applications for post-conviction relief that followed. Atkins appealed an order that summarily dismissed his most recent application for post-conviction relief. Atkins argued the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the case, failing to give him notice prior to dismissal, applying affirmative defenses not raised by the state, and by failing to address his actual innocence argument. Explaining that summary dismissal of an application before the State responded was “analogous to dismissal of a civil complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” or “appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact,” the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in dismissing his case: “Atkins fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.” View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Biron D. Baker Family Medicine, PC and Biron D. Baker, M.D. (collectively, "Baker Medicine") appealed a district court judgment awarding Big Pines, LLC attorney’s fees and costs. In 2011, Baker Medicine signed an agreement to lease commercial property from Phoenix M.D., L.L.C. Baker executed the lease personally and for Baker Medicine as its president. Baker Medicine allegedly vacated the premises several months prior to the end of the lease and in a damaged condition. Phoenix subsequently sold the building to Big Pines, and assigned its interest in the lease to Big Pines as part of the sale. Big Pines sued alleging breach of the lease by Baker Medicine and breach of the personal guaranty by Baker. A jury found Baker Medicine and Baker breached the lease and awarded Big Pines $18,750 in damages. Big Pines later moved for an award of attorney’s fees under the personal guaranty. The district court denied Big Pines’ request, concluding the personal guaranty was not assigned to Big Pines. The district court's judgment with respect to the fees was reversed by the North Dakota Supreme Court on Big Pines' appeal. On remand, Big Pines again moved for attorney's fees, "as well as any future fees and costs until the case is “fully and finally dismissed." This motion was granted, and Baker Medicine appealed, arguing the district court erred in calculating the recoverable amount of attorney's fees incurred by Big Pines. Concluding the district court provided it with a discernible basis for the fee award, the Supreme Court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing its judgment on fees. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Big Pines, LLC v. Baker, et al." on Justia Law

Santos Casarez, III appealed when his motion to suppress evidence was denied, and his conditional guilty plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test was accepted. Jamestown Police Officer Andrew Noreen witnessed a physical altercation between Casarez and a female outside a bar in Jamestown. Officer Renfro was also at the scene and spoke to the female and Casarez. During Renfro’s conversation with Casarez, he smelled an odor of alcohol on Casarez’s breath, and observed Casarez’s poor balance and bloodshot eyes. At that point Renfro formed the opinion Casarez was not capable of lawfully driving a motor vehicle. Renfro provided Casarez with the necessary information to provide bail for his girlfriend, and advised him to take a cab to the law enforcement center (LEC) due to his intoxication. During their conversation, Renfro learned Casarez drove a gold GMC Yukon. Renfro then left the scene. Forty-five minutes later, Renfro observed a gold GMC Yukon parked outside the LEC, along with a man he believed to be Casarez standing inside the lobby. Renfro observed the unoccupied Yukon was running with its lights on. Renfro made contact with Casarez in the lobby, observing the same signs of impairment as earlier. Renfro began talking to Casarez to confirm or dispel his suspicion Casarez had driven to the LEC. Renfro ultimately placed Casarez under investigation for driving under the influence. He requested Casarez complete a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, and confirmed from LEC security camera footage, Casarez drove himself. Renfro requested Casarez submit to a preliminary breath test and placed Casarez under arrest; leading to the charges under appeal. Casarez argued Jamestown Municipal Code section 21-04-06 was in direct conflict with N.D.C.C. section 39-08-01 after the Legislature’s 2019 amendment to the statute, and the Ordinance was void because it conflicted with a state statute. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "City of Jamestown v. Casarez" on Justia Law

Karen and Jerome Schirado appealed a judgment granting the City of Glen Ullin and the Glen Ullin Park District permanent injunctive relief and awarding the Park District attorney’s fees. The Schirados owned land near both Park District and City property. In 2013, the Park District sued the Schirados to enjoin them from fencing and allowing their horses to graze on Park District lots. The Park District was granted default judgment. In 2019, the Park District and the City sued again, alleging the Schirados violated the 2013 judgment. The suit contained claims similar to the 2013 suit, with additional claims involving the City’s streets and alleys which were not involved in the original action. The Schirados conceded they placed fencing on the properties and allowed their horses to graze, but alleged they were given permission by the City. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the City and the Park District. The court found the Schirados in contempt of court because of their violation of the 2013 judgment, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the City and the Park District. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the City, and reversed and remanded the fee award for the district court to explain its rationale for the award, including which amount is a sanction for contempt, and which portion is allocated to each plaintiff. On remand, the Schirados moved a new trial, claiming Karen Schirado possessed additional testimony and evidence “necessary to allow her to fully present her case.” The district court denied the motion for trial and concluded the Schirados had two opportunities to present evidence of an oral or written agreement to use the City property and failed to do so. The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the Schirados failed to present admissible evidence in resistance to the City and Park District’s motion for summary judgment. The court also granted the City and the Park District permanent injunctive relief and awarded the Park District $5,460.00 in attorney’s fees. The Schirados appeal from the amended judgment. Finding no reversible error in the amendment judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Glen Ullin, et al. v. Schirado, et al." on Justia Law

K.M.E. appealed an order extending a guardianship over her biological child J.O. L.O. and S.O. were granted guardianship of J.O. and his stepsister, I.E. L.O. and S.O. were J.O.’s maternal grandparents. K.M.E. was J.O.’s biological mother, and her husband, K.R.E., was J.O.’s stepfather and I.E.’s biological father. Before the petition for guardianship was filed, K.M.E. and K.R.E. left J.O. in the care of L.O. and S.O. “for an indefinite period of time” and did not make plans to resume physical custody. The juvenile court noted K.M.E. and K.R.E. “failed to provide food, shelter, and medical attention to adequately provide for the minor child’s needs since June 1, 2017.” The court took judicial notice of four pending criminal matters with pending bench warrants against K.M.E. and four more against her husband. The court suspended K.M.E.’s rights of custody over J.O. “due to her lack of stability, pending criminal charges, and inability to properly care for and nurture the minor child and to provide a stable living environment.” The court appointed L.O. and S.O. as guardians over J.O. for an unlimited duration under N.D.C.C. 27-20-36. At the same time, L.O. and S.O. sought guardianship and were appointed guardians of I.E. I.E. later returned to K.M.E. and K.R.E.’s home. After K.R.E. petitioned the juvenile court and L.O. and S.O. did not object in the related case, the guardianship over I.E. was terminated. However, with regard to the petition to terminate the guardianship for J.O., at a hearing, J.O. stated he did not want contact with his mother, and wanted to continue living with L.O. and S.O. The court ultimately found K.M.E. did not meet her burden of presenting evidence the circumstances that lead to the guardianship no longer existed. Accordingly, the petition to terminate was denied. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the trial court did not err in extending J.O.'s guardianship; judgment was affirmed. View "Interest of J.O." on Justia Law

Melissa Oster and N.B. appealed two orders denying motions for a new trial after a jury awarded a verdict in N.B.’s favor. Oster and her daughter, N.B., were staying at a residence owned by Kevin Terwilliger. Josh and Samantha Terwilliger were formerly married and lived at the residence. Samantha Terwilliger (nka Seewalker), was Oster’s cousin. In 2015, N.B. was playing with another child outside the Terwilliger residence while Oster and Seewalker were in the house. Josh and Kevin Terwilliger were not present. A horse on the Terwilliger property kicked N.B. in the head, seriously injuring her. The parties disputed the nature and extent of N.B.’s injuries. At trial, both sides provided testimony of expert medical witnesses to establish the extent of N.B’s injuries. A jury returned a verdict i favor of N.B. The jury did not award Oster damages and found her 45% at fault for N.B.’s accident. The jury attributed 0% fault to Kevin Terwilliger. Of the remaining fault, 30% was attributed to Josh Terwilliger and 25% to Seewalker. After the trial, two motions for a new trial were filed on behalf of N.B., not Oster. The district court denied the motions. N.B. and Oster appealed. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's orders denying the motions for a new trial. View "N.B. et al. v. Terwilliger, et al." on Justia Law

Terpsichore Maras appealed a default judgment issued as a sanction for discovery abuses, and a judgment dismissing her counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. The case arises out of the Attorney General’s investigation of Maras for violation of consumer fraud protection laws. In January 2018, in a separate case, the Attorney General sought to enforce various subpoenas he issued under his power to investigate consumer fraud. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the default judgment, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment dismissing Maras’s counterclaim, concluding she failed to comply with notice requirements for claims against the State of North Dakota, which were jurisdictional. View "North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. Maras, et al." on Justia Law

In March 2019, the North Dakota State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the “Board”) issued an administrative complaint against Dr. Jacob Schmitz, a chiropractor licensed by the Board. The administrative complaint initiated an administrative proceeding against Schmitz, which resulted in the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issuing a recommended order granting summary judgment to the Board. The ALJ declined recommending the disciplinary action that the Board should take against Schmitz. Instead, he noted six observations to aid the Board’s determination of disciplinary action against Schmitz. In April 2020, the Board noticed a special meeting, with Schmitz listed in the notice and agenda, including a footnote stating, "The governing body anticipates this topic may be discussed in Executive Session." Schmitz alleged the Board discussed and established sanctions against him in the executive session. In May 2020, the Board held a regular meeting. Soon after the meeting began, the Board went into executive session for approximately thirty-five minutes. After the executive session, the Board voted to confirm the sanctions against Schmitz. Schmitz requested the recording of this executive session, and was denied by the Board. Thereafter, Schmitz filed this lawsuit, alleging the Board violated the law on access to public records and meetings. The Board moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After a hearing, the district court granted the Board’s motion and dismissed the complaint. Schmitz argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the trial court misapplied the law. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court erred in its application of Rule 12(b)(6), and remanded for further proceedings. View "Schmitz v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners" on Justia Law

Dale Klein appealed a disorderly conduct restraining order directing he have no contact with Richard and Linda Sollin (collectively “the Sollins”) until July 8, 2021. Klein argued he was not provided adequate service or proper notice of the petition for disorderly conduct against him. Klein also argued he was denied a full hearing because the district court granted the Sollins’ joint petition after hearing the testimony of only one of the two petitioners. Both parties petitioned for a restraining order against the other. The trial court record reflected that Klein represented himself at the hearing, and he did not object to the district court’s intent to consider the Sollins’ petition nor did he request a continuance. The court received testimony from Linda Sollin. During her testimony, Linda Sollin described her association with Klein and his family, recounted prior incidents involving Klein, and described her observations of the events that lead to the restraining order petition. Klein subsequently cross-examined Linda Sollin. Richard Sollin did not testify at the hearing. After hearing witness testimony, the district court found there were reasonable grounds to support both petitions and granted both restraining orders. Klein appealed the order issued against him. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Klein waived personal jurisdiction and unfair surprise claims by appearing at the hearing and failing to object or request a continuance. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err by granting the disorderly conduct restraining order after receiving testimony from one, but not both, of the Sollins. The Court affirmed the district court as to all other issues. View "Sollin, et al. v. Klein" on Justia Law