Slip opinions decided 2020 — North Dakota Reports

District court orders summarily denying an application for post–conviction relief, a motion for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, and a motion for reconsideration are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6),(7).

A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A disorderly conduct restraining order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

The statute of frauds does not bar a deceit claim made by a third party to an unenforceable contract, who is not seeking to enforce the alleged agreement.

An appeal to a district court from a post-hearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. Failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for initiating an appeal to the district court from an administrative decision prevents the district court from obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appellants did not meet their burden under either Montana exception and did not explain how a district court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction by granting a remedy that may not be enforceable. The district court judgment is affirmed.

Suspension of a driver's license must be done in accordance to law.

Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. A court is not required to make an explicit finding of contempt when no further remedy would result and the only purpose would be to taint the alleged contemnor. When a matter is left to the broad discretion of the district court, it is envisioned there is a broad range of factual scenarios in which the court is left to make its choice, and whichever choice it makes will be upheld on appeal.

Any person who is directly interested in the proceedings before an administrative agency, who is factually aggrieved by the decision of the agency, and who participates in the proceedings before the agency is a party and has standing to appeal from the decision of the agency. Standing does not extend to merely nominal parties who are not aggrieved. Appellate review of PSC findings of fact is limited to whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determed that the factual conclusions reached were proven by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. We review an administrative law judge's denial of a petition to intervene under the same standard as we review an agency's decision. Simply having a substantial interest in or being substantially affected by the outcome of an agency proceeding is not a showing of good cause to intervene late.

In murder for hire cases, taking actions that could reasonably lead to the hired individual committing the solicited killing constitute a substantial step in attempting to commit the underlying crime. Solicitation accompanied by an offering of a specific amount of money and assisting in formulating a plan to commit murder were concrete steps toward the commission of the crime.

The time for an appeal from a posthearing administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. ch. 65-10 and ch. 28-32. The Legislature has set the time for an appeal to the district court at thirty days from the date notice of the order has been given as required by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-39, including service by mail.

The district court did not obviously err by not providing a curative instruction regarding a potential juror's comments during voir dire.

A parent moving to modify parenting time must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that the modification is in the child's best interests. A district court may clarify a judgment that is vague, uncertain, or ambiguous.

Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C, creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. A district court is not bound to accept stipulations regarding custody and care of children if it finds the stipulations are not in the best interests of the child. A district court's findings and conclusions regarding the presumption and stipulations should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision.

District courts are required to dismiss an applicant's claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction relief counsel in a Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act proceeding. Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties. Appellant's motions for recusal, to compel discovery, and to correct the record are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Absent personal jurisdiction, a court is powerless to do anything beyond dismissing without prejudice. A determination of subject matter and personal jurisdiction must precede any dismissal with prejudice.

When determining if there is good cause to continue when a defendant has elected his statutory speedy trial rights, failure of the court to address the factors will not be reversed if we are able to analyze the factors based on the record. A defendant cannot have the benefit of delay while simultaneously claiming the right to a speedy trial. A failure to show prejudice substantially weakens a speedy trial claim.

A motion to dismiss a complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint. A complaint should not be dismissed unless it is disclosed with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. An abuse of process occurs when a person uses a legal process, whether criminal or civil, against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. The essential elements of an abuse-of-process claim are: (1) an ulterior purpose and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. A creditor must serve on the debtor a notice that a garnishee summons may be issued at least ten days before the issuance of any garnishee summons against the earnings of any person. A claim for conversion requires proof of 'a tortious detention or destruction of personal property, or a wrongful exercise of dominion or control over the property inconsistent with or in defiance of the rights of the owner. A correct result will not be set aside merely because the district court relied on a different reason for its decision.

Negligence claims relating to phlebotomy services performed by a hospital are governed by the two-year malpractice statute of limitations. In a medical malpractice action, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or with reasonable diligence should know, of the injury, its cause and the defendant's possible negligence. The tort of deceit involves the suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it.

The district court did not obviously err by admitting fact testimony and by not stopping a witness from testifying by way of a mix of permissible lay opinion testimony and arguably impermissible expert opinion testimony.

A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

A district court's decision whether to grant a continuance will not be set aside on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Appellate review of a criminal sentence is generally limited to whether the defendant was sentenced within the statutory prescribed limits. An objection or motion to the trial court is unnecessary to preserve a claim of illegal sentence imposed in a criminal judgment from which an appeal may be immediately taken.

Under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(2), the moving party may file a reply brief within seven days after service of the answer brief. A motion is not submitted to the court for decision until all briefs are filed or the time for filing has expired.

Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. If competent evidence of domestic violence does not trigger the statutory presumption, the violence must be considered as one factor in deciding primary residential responsibility. A district court's findings and conclusions regarding the presumption should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision.

A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

When an appellate court remands a case for a trial without limitation, a party who previously stipulated to waive the right to a jury trial may demand a jury trial, unless the parties intended the stipulation to apply to any future trials or the right is otherwise limited by law.

Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii), N.D.R.Civ.P., permits a district court to sanction a party in violation of a discovery order by prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing a claim or defense with evidence not disclosed under the discovery order. Where there are offsetting damages awards between two parties, the proper method of calculating prejudgment interest is to first determine the net award and then determine interest on that net amount.

The district court did not err when it limited cross-examination of a victim regarding the victim's interest in obtaining restitution. The district court did not err when it ordered the defendant to pay restitution for injuries the defendant was convicted of causing.

Exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when law enforcement acts in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued. Sufficient competent evidence capable of supporting the district court's findings exists, and its decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Sufficient evidence supports finding the defendant had a prior conviction for an equivalent offense, and residue in a pipe supports the conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

Defendants have the right to court-appointed counsel at public expense in all felony cases and in all non-felony cases, unless the sentence upon conviction will not include imprisonment, only if they are eligible under the guidelines governing indigency. Non-indigent defendants also have the right to court-appointed counsel, at their own expense, if they are unable to secure the assistance of counsel. An appellant assumes the consequences and the risk of failing to file a transcript on appeal, and this Court will not review an issue if the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the district court's alleged error.

Sufficient evidence supports the criminal judgment finding the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion for acquittal.

Section 39-20-14(1), N.D.C.C., establishes that drivers are deemed to have provided consent to submit to a screening test when the driver commits a traffic offense or is involved in an accident and, in conjunction with the traffic violation or accident, law enforcement formulates an opinion the driver's body contains alcohol It does not require the screening test to be conducted at the location of the stop.

The amount of damages caused by an eminent domain taking is an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact.

District court order summarily denying application for post-conviction relief remanded with instructions for further proceedings. Reliance on proposed orders containing no factual findings, conclusions of law, or support from the record does not satisfy the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-11.

Section 14-09-06.2(1)(j), N.D.C.C., creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence if certain criteria is met. If competent evidence of domestic violence does not trigger the statutory presumption, the violence must be considered as one factor in deciding primary residential responsibility. A district court's findings and conclusions regarding the presumption should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to understand the basis for its decision.

A district court judgment relating to the cancellation of a contract for deed is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

A district court's order granting the request for continuing treatment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.35.1(a)(2).

District court judgment affirming an administrative law judge decision that affirmed a Workforce Safety and Insurance order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7).

The primary purpose in interpreting contracts is to ascertain the parties' intent. The parties' intent is ascertained from the writing alone when a contract is unambiguous. When a term in a contract has only one logical meaning, the term is unambiguous. A personal guaranty agreement that does not acknowledge or promise to pay an existing debt is not evidence of debt under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-04.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Under N.D.R.Ev. 408, evidence of compromise or offers to compromise a disputed claim is not admissible to prove liability for, invalidity of, or the amount of a claim. The concept of "opening the door" allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to qualify, explain, or limit testimony or evidence previously admitted.

Determining when a cause of action accrues is usually a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed. Under the discovery rule the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and its resulting injury. A contract's language will govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit.

The district court did not err in dismissing the defendant's motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict defendant and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. The district court imposed an illegal sentence when it referenced an incorrect life table to compute the defendant's remaining life expectancy.

In determining whether the moving party has established a prima facie case of an illegal seizure, a district court may consider evidence already in the record. A stop may be prolonged only if the officer has reasonable suspicion to justify detaining the individual for inquiries unrelated to the stop.

Interlocutory orders in an action are merged into the final judgment and may be reviewed on appeal of that judgment. A final judgment supersedes an interim order's parenting provisions, which are by nature temporary. A district court must award primary residential responsibility in light of the child's best interests, considering all the relevant statutory best-interest factors. A court's decisions on residential responsibility and parenting time present findings of fact, which will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous. A district court clearly errs in granting parenting time subject to a minor child's right to decide whether to allow that parenting time. A decision whether to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed unless the district court abused its discretion. The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions.

A district court may clarify its own previous order. Due process is an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and meaningful manner and is complied with if the party has an opportunity, but argues other issues. A party that does not raise an issue in the district court cannot argue the issue for the first time on appeal.

A juvenile court does not have an obligation to ensure a party's presence. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10(a)(3), a parent of a child must be present unless excused by the court.

Under the concurrent cause doctrine, an insurance policy provides coverage for liability when both a covered risk and an excluded risk contribute to the accident.

Probationers consent to reasonable warrantless searches when they submit to a search condition as part of the terms of their probation. An individual sharing a residence with a probationer forfeits his or her ability to seek suppression of evidence obtained during a reasonable warrantless probationary search when he or she does not object at the time of the search.

The Department of Transportation's decision to suspend an individual's driving privileges was not in accordance with the law when it was based on evidence that was inadmissible at the adjudication hearing.

In divorce proceedings, if the parties do not agree on a valuation date for marital property, the valuation date is the date the parties separated or the date of the service of the summons in the action, whichever occurred first. A district court errs as a matter of law in setting a child support obligation if it does not comply with the requirements of the child support guidelines. A district court's ability to award post-minority child support is limited to circumstances under which the parents have a statutory legal duty to support adult children. A district court errs if it orders child support to equitably balance the burdens of the divorce and to reduce an income disparity between the parties.

If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A party may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during a proceeding. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a child's "home state" is the state where a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.

A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

This Court's review of the appeal from the decision of a local governing body is very limited. A city's denial of a variance application is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable when the ordinances do not provide for a variance based on the evidence presented.

Judgment terminating father's parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

A district court erred in determining a lease was ambiguous with regard to when the term ended. A term in a lease is not ambiguous simply because it requires a future event or contingency.

A district court's continuing treatment order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Questions requiring the defendant to give his opinion regarding the veracity and credibility of earlier witnesses is improper. Section 62.1-04-02(1), N.D.C.C., is a strict liability offense, punishable without regard to intent, knowledge, willfulness, or negligence.

An order terminating father's parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

The State's motion to terminate a pretrial diversion agreement and resume prosecution must be made within one month after expiration of the period of suspension specified in the agreement.

Conviction of class C felony simple assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Elements of a legal malpractice claim are: 1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship, 2) a duty by the attorney to the client, 3) a breach of that duty by the attorney, and 4) damages to the client proximately caused by the breach of duty. On review of a summary judgment, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and that party is given the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order, which determined an individual is entitled to both the scheduled and whole body impairment award, is reversed and remanded under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46, because it is not in accordance with the law.

A district court judgment reversing an administrative law judge's order suspending driving privileges is reversed and remanded.

Other factors may cause a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to be unreliable, including physiological causes for nystagmus, but those factors go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Whether a driver refused to take a chemical test is a question of fact.

The district court abused its discretion when it denied granting relief from a judgment dismissing a case as a sanction when the dismissal was based on a misapplication of the law.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). Constitutional issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.

District court orders denying a motion for contempt and a request to reconsider are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1 (a)(1) and (4).

The State may appeal from an order quashing an information or indictment. The loss of evidence in the State's custody may amount to a due process violation when (1) the State fails to collect evidence in the first instance (2) the State fails to preserve evidence once it has been collected and (3) the State suppresses evidence which has been collected and preserved. When apprised of a discovery violation, the district court should impose the least severe sanction to rectify the prejudice. Dismissal of an action for discovery violations is one of the most severe sanctions available to a court. Dismissal should be used sparingly and only in extreme situations and should not be used if an alternative, less drastic sanction is available and just as effective.

Under N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(2), the clerk of district court is required to mail notice of the filing of a foreign judgment to the judgment debtor. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(3), a judgment creditor may not execute on a foreign judgment without first adequately complying with the notice procedures provided in N.D.C.C. § 28-20.1-03(2). Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(3), a judgment creditor is allowed to serve interrogatories on each judgment debtor who is jointly or severally liable for the judgment. Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 33(a)(3), subparts to the primary question are not separate interrogatories. Upon a finding that a claim for relief was frivolous, the district court must award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

Judgment affirming Job Service North Dakota's allowance of unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7).

Whether a defendant is competent to plead guilty is a finding of fact. When a district court is presented with conflicting expert evidence, we resolve evidentiary conflicts in favor of affirmance. A defendant claiming he or she was incompetent to plead guilty raising ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate by a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that he or she was not competent to plead guilty.

A district court's response to a jury request for supplemental instructions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. The identity of the victim is not an element of theft and may be disregarded as surplusage. A victim is entitled to be made whole through a reasonable restitution based on the entirety of his actual losses.

Copies of official Department of Transportation records may be certified as correct by Department employees who are not acting in a director capacity. Record custodians are not required to swear an oath of office prior to certifying copies of official records under N.D.R.Ev. 902(4).

District court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision denying further workers' compensation benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

A district court's order imposing sanctions for contempt did not provide a sufficient record to review the appropriateness of the sanction.

A motion to dismiss a complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the statement of the claim presented in the complaint. A district court's decision granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo on appeal. To have standing to litigate an issue, a party must have suffered some injury from the putatively illegal action and must assert the party's own legal rights and interests.

Although the reason for the continuance is absent from the record, under de novo review a district court did not violate the Appellant's right to a speedy trial by continuing the trial to a later date.

Only judgments and decrees constituting a final judgment and specific orders enumerated by statute are appealable. A two-step analysis is used to evaluate the finality of orders for review: the order or judgment must be appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02, and the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b), if applicable, must be met. The district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions, which will only be disturbed on appeal if the court abused its discretion. The district court errs as a matter of law if it fails to comply with the child support guidelines in determining an obligor's child support obligation. An agreement purporting to relieve an obligor of any current or future duty of child support is void.

A district court's order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Extended parenting time with a fit non-custodial parent is routinely awarded if the child is old enough, absent a reason for denying it. A district court's property valuations and distribution in a divorce case are findings of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. The district court may not order a property distribution that is inconsistent with the parties' settlement agreement without providing an explanation for its decision. The court may not order remedial sanctions for contempt without a finding of contempt.

District court orders denying motions for continuance and for appointment of a parenting investigator and a divorce judgment are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

The Declaratory Judgment Act does not provide statutory authorization for immediate appeals of decisions concerning insurers' duty to defend.

Section 8.6, N.D.R.Ct., governs parenting investigators and incorporates the code of conduct. The code of conduct provides a parenting investigator should aggressively strive to achieve professional independence and objectivity. A judgment establishing paternity and granting primary residential responsibility and decision making authority for non-emergency healthcare decision to one parent when the parties cannot agree is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a district court may amend a judgment to correct a mistake resulting from an oversight or omission that causes the judgment to fail to reflect the court's intent. Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a), a district court must provide notice to the parties before it amends a judgment on its own.

A district court judgment affirming an administrative suspension of driving privileges for a period of 91 days is affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

In divorce cases, the district court must make an equitable property distribution.

Section 29-32.1-01, N.D.C.C., only permits a person who has been convicted of a crime to apply for post-conviction relief. When a criminal judgment has been reversed and remanded by this Court an individual has not been convicted of a crime and is not entitled to post-conviction relief.

A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. The obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error. This Court reviews an alleged inconsistent verdict by examining both the law of the case and the evidence to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable or whether it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence. Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a), an error that does not affect substantial rights is harmless and must be disregarded.

Judicial notice is governed by N.D.R.Ev. 201. A district court must take notice only if a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information.

A district court properly denied a motion to suppress by correctly applying the remedy for unlawful official conduct in a preventing-arrest case by permitting the defendant to raise the factual defense of unlawfulness.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a continuance. Evidence was sufficient to support guilty verdicts, and the district court did not err when it ordered the defendant to pay restitution for injuries caused by the defendant's assaults.

The criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

A district court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence subsequent to an invalid traffic stop of a vehicle is affirmed.

Affirmative defenses must be pled or are waived. Whether there is an accord and satisfaction or the existence of a waiver are questions of fact. Whether a personal representative breached a fiduciary duty is a question of fact.

The "law of the case" doctrine is the principle that if an appellate court has passed on a legal question and remanded the case to the court below for further proceedings, the legal question thus determined by the appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same. The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms. A parent moving to modify parenting time must show that a material change in circumstances has occurred since entry of the prior parenting time order and that modification is in the child's best interests. A district court's decision on parenting time is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

A district court judgment dismissing an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

District court orders denying a motion to vacate and prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing new or additional litigation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

This Court will dismiss an appeal as moot if the issues become academic and there is no actual controversy left to be determined. The failure to obtain a stay pending appeal may moot issues raised on appeal.

A party seeking relief in motions for reconsideration and for new trial has the burden to affirmatively establish the district court abused its discretion denying the motions. The district court has broad discretion over the presentation of evidence and conduct of a trial, in addition to whether to grant a motion for a continuance, and the court's decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

To establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation, the petitioner must allege facts that, if proven, would support a conclusion that rejection of the plea bargain would have been rational because valid defenses existed, a suppression motion could have undermined the prosecution's case, or there was a realistic potential for a lower sentence. A defendant's subjective, self-serving statement that, with competent advice, he would have insisted on going to trial is insufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland in a plea bargain situation. The provisions of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 are mandatory, and substantial compliance is required to ensure a defendant knowingly and voluntarily enters a guilty plea. Although N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 does not require ritualistic compliance, a court must substantially comply with the rule's procedural requirements to ensure a defendant is entering a voluntary and intelligent guilty plea.

The denial of a defendant's application for post-conviction relief for misuse of process is affirmed pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

The deprivation of the right to counsel is a structural error. This Court reviews an alleged denial of a defendant's right to counsel de novo. Rule 11 (b)(1)(C) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure does not extend beyond the procedure for accepting a plea of guilty. Rule 11(b)(1)(C) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure does not impose a duty on the court to inform non-indigent defendant that the court may appoint an attorney to represent him at his own expense if he was unable to retain his own attorney. Rule 44(a)(3) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure permits the court to appoint an attorney to represent a non-indigent defendant at their own expense if they are unable to retain their own attorney. A defendant knowingly and intelligently waives their right to counsel when they are informed that they will be held to the same standards as an attorney. Objections to a search warrant cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. When an issue is not raised in the trial court, even a constitutional issue involving a defendant's right to confront witnesses, this Court will not address the issue on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error.

A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

A district court's order denying an application for post-conviction relief after finding that counsel's representation was not ineffective was not clearly erroneous.

A judgment granting dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service is modified to dismiss without prejudice, and affirmed as modified. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion to compel discovery when the discovery requests were not related to the issue of personal jurisdiction. Issues raised for the first time on appeal normally will not be addressed.

The 2019 amendment to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) limits the scope of the exclusion of evidence "to proof of refusals" in an "administrative proceeding." A district court's judgment denying a motion to exclude the chemical test results in a criminal proceeding is affirmed.

The domestic violence presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-29(2) is only rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The absence of physical abuse of a child, use of substances at the time of a domestic violence incident or subsequent treatment for the substance use does not rebut the presumption. The passage of time alone also does not rebut the presumption. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-31(4), when a court finds domestic violence occurred, it shall make orders for the allocation of decision making responsibility that best protects the child, parent, or both. Child support calculations must state how net income was determined. Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-29(4), when a parent perpetrates domestic violence as described, fees must be awarded unless those costs would place an undue financial hardship.

A district court's order for restitution is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

A district court judgment finding a bill of transfer is void as a result of undue influence is not clearly erroneous. The court did not abuse its discretion by quashing a post-trial subpoena. Issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.

This Court exercises a limited review of a challenge to a municipality's decision to specially assess property. A municipality has broad discretion to determine benefits and apportion assessments and costs to properties within an improvement district. The special assessment against a property must not exceed the benefit which has been determined to have accrued thereto.

A district court's decision on a motion to relocate is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. A district court must analyze all four Stout-Hawkinson factors in determining whether a custodial parent may relocate out-of-state with a child.

When an individual has been given a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney before deciding to take a chemical test, the individual is not required to be provided with a second chance to consult with an attorney subsequent to making a decision to take the chemical test.

A defendant raising specific grounds in a N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal waives on appeal other grounds not asserted in the district court.

A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A criminal judgment and a judgment denying postconviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

A criminal judgment entered after a jury verdict is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Jury instructions should fairly inform the jury of the law applicable to the case and fairly cover the claims made by both sides of the case. Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole, and are sufficient if they correctly advise the jury of the law. A district court's decision on whether to disqualify a law firm or a lawyer is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A court may order judicial supervision of the winding up of a dissolved limited liability company on a member's application and showing of good cause.

At a civil commitment hearing, the testimony and reports of an expert who conducted an examination are admissible. A harmless error is one that does not affect a party's substantial rights.

A criminal judgment and an order denying a motion to suppress are affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2),(7).

The district court abuses its discretion when it misinterprets or misapplies the law. A finding of unconscionability under Rule 60(b)(6) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure requires balancing procedural and substantive findings, and must analyze whether the judgment as a whole was so one-sided and created hardship that relief was required

A district court order revoking probation and second criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

A party appealing a hearing officer's decision must file "reasonably specific" specifications of error detailing which matters are at issue, so as to alert the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed. A rehabilitation plan is appropriate if it meets the requirements of N.D.C.C. ch. 65-05.1 and gives the injured worker a reasonable opportunity to obtain substantial gainful employment. An ALJ's decision was supported by evidence from which a reasoning mind could have reasonalby concluded WSI's rehabilitation plan would return Beam to substantial gainful employment in light of his injuries.

This Court defers to a juvenile court's assessment of credibility, but if the court does not make specific findings, this Court is left to speculate as to the law and facts the court relied on in denying a motion.

A district court's order denying a request for post-judgment interest is affirmed. Neither N.D.C.C. §§ 32-15-29 nor 32-15-30 provide for post-judgment interest on an award in an eminent domain proceedings subsequent to the political subdivision's deposit of the full amount of the judgment in court.

Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in earlier actions between the same parties or their privies. A party with a single cause of action generally may not split that cause of action and maintain several lawsuits for different parts of the action.

The term "actual drilling operations," as used in continuous drilling clauses in two oil and gas leases, is ambiguous as a matter of law.

A district court's dismissal of a criminal complaint with prejudice is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. A party may not collaterally attack a final decision that was not appealed in a subsequent proceeding.

A real property owner may testify about the value of the land without any further qualification or special knowledge. A district court has broad equitable powers to redistribute property and debts in a postjudgment proceeding if a party fails to comply with an order or judgment.

Where the State has a legal obligation that becomes unenforceable by the passage of a statute of limitations, the Legislative Assembly may waive or extend the limitation period to revive a previously valid claim against the State without making a prohibited "donation" within the meaning of the gift clause. An action brought by an individual as a taxpayer facially challenging a statute does not fail merely because the statute includes constitutional applications along with potentially unconstitutional applications.

In deciding a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), district courts may consider materials embraced by the pleadings and materials that are part of the public record without converting the motion to a summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56. Communications made by a state's attorney while performing an official duty as prescribed in N.D.C.C. § 11-16-01 are entitled to absolute privilege under N.D.C.C. § 14-02-05(1). A communication made by a state's attorney while performing his or her official duty to conduct criminal prosecutions under N.D.C.C. § 11-16-01(1) is absolutely privileged if made while performing an act or during an activity "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." Disclosures made to an administrative agency, at the request of the agency, and during the course of a statutorily authorized investigation by the agency are absolutely privileged under N.D.C.C. § 14-02-05(2).

The full-text requirement in N.D. Const. art. III, § 2, prohibits a petition to initiate a measure that would amend the Constitution from incorporating a statute by reference.

The supreme court, in exercising its original jurisdiction, may issue a writ of injunction to restrain the commission or continuance of an act. The five-year residency requirement of N.D. Const. art. V, § 4, relating to holding an executive branch office, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A person's legal residence is a question of fact.

Chapter 61-33.1, N.D.C.C., governs the State's sovereign land mineral ownership of the riverbed segments subject to inundation by the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin project dams and provides a process for determining ownership and returning funds incorrectly paid to the State. The State does not have any claim or hold title as sovereign lands to any minerals above the ordinary high water mark of the historical Missouri riverbed channel. When N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1 applies to determine ownership of mineral interests, the process provided by the chapter must be followed to decide ownership.

A district court judgment determining real estate was not acquired by adverse possession or acquiescence is affirmed.

A contract to supply aggregate materials to a county stockpile is not a contract for the "construction of a public improvement" under N.D.C.C. ch. 48-01.2. The county was not required to obtain a bond from a contractor for a contract to supply aggregate materials to stockpiles under N.D.C.C. § 48-01.2-10.

Chapter 61-33.1, N.D.C.C., governs the State's sovereign land mineral ownership of the riverbed segments subject to inundation by the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin project dams and provides a process for determining ownership and returning funds incorrectly paid to the State. The State does not have any claim or hold title as sovereign lands to any minerals above the ordinary high water mark of the historical Missouri riverbed channel. When N.D.C.C. ch. 61-33.1 applies to determine ownership of mineral interests, the process provided by the chapter must be followed to decide ownership.

A child support obligor's self-induced reduction in income generally does not constitute a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of a child support obligation.

A district court's application of res judicata to claims concerning rights to real property is partially affirmed and partially reversed.

Laches is the delay in enforcing a person's rights that disadvantages another, and a party asserting laches must prove he was so prejudiced during the delay that he cannot be restored to status quo. Equitable estoppel cannot be used to create an enforceable agreement between the parties.

Deeds are construed in the same manner as contracts with the primary purpose to ascertain and effectuate the parties' or grantor's intent. Whether a deed is ambiguous is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal.

The Supreme Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction only in extraordinary cases to rectify errors and prevent injustice when no adequate alternative remedy exists. Because the individual who initially inspected and reviewed the installation of the Intoxilyzer 8000 testing device did not make any testimonial statements under the Confrontation Clause or Rule 707 of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence, the City of West Fargo is not required to produce her at trial.

A district court's decision to invalidate a portion of a decedent's will based on undue influence and to give effect to a portion of a contingent distribution clause is affirmed.

The secretary of state does not have a duty to certify a new nomination and place the new nominee's name on the general election ballot as a candidate for a statewide executive branch office when a vacancy on the ballot occurs after the primary election, if the vacancy did not occur as a result of one of the conditions listed in N.D.C.C. § 16.1-11-18(6).

Order revoking defendant's probation and amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

The Administrative Agencies Practice Act governs an appeal from a decision of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission's authority to regulate is limited to that authority provided to it by the legislature. For an administrative agency, the term "jurisdiction" has three components: (1) personal jurisdiction, referring to the agency's authority over the parties and intervenors involved in the proceedings (2) subject matter jurisdiction, referring to the agency's power to hear and determine the causes of a general class of cases to which a particular case belongs and (3) the agency's scope of authority under statute. The Commission's regulatory authority is limited to projects that meet the definition of "gas or liquid energy conversion facility" found in N.D.C.C. § 49-22.1-01(6). A refinery not designed for or capable of refining 50,000 bpd is not a "gas or liquid energy conversion facility" as that term is defined. A project proponent may avoid the time and expense of the Commission's regulatory review that comes with a larger project by deciding to reduce the scale of a project to a size just below the regulatory threshold.

To preserve an issue for appeal, an argument must be raised before the administrative hearing officer and identified in the specifications of error on appeal to the district court.

For the tort of deceit, one who willfully deceives another with intent to induce that person to alter that person's position to that person's injury or risk is liable for any damage which that person thereby suffers. While there must be a false representation of a material fact that either exists in the present or has existed in the past, a mere expression of an opinion in the nature of a prophecy as to the happening or non-happening of a future event is not actionable as deceit. Negligence consists of a duty on the part of an allegedly negligent person to protect the plaintiff from injury, a failure to discharge the duty, and a resulting injury proximately caused by the breach of the duty. A proximate cause is a cause which, as a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any controlling intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which it would not have occurred.

An appeal from a juvenile court order finding two children to be deprived is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

The order denying post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

Failure to assert a claim of obvious error on appeal does not warrant review under the obvious error standard.

An award of spousal support is rehabilitative when it is ordered to provide the receiving spouse an opportunity to acquire an education, training, work skills, or experience to increase earning capacity or to become self-supporting. Non-rehabilitative spousal support includes support ordered to equitably reduce a substantial income disparity that cannot be adjusted by property division or rehabilitative support.

This Court exercises a limited review of a challenge to a municipality's decision to specially assess property. A municipality has broad discretion to determine benefits and apportion assessments and costs to properties within an improvement district. The special assessment against a property must not exceed the benefit which has been determined to have accrued thereto.

Section 16.1-01-08, N.D.C.C., authorizes a court to order the secretary of state to correct an error which has been committed in printing the ballot, and does not place a time limitation on the court's authority to order the correction of a ballot before the election. A person's legal residence is a question of fact.

An assessment that exceeds the true and full value of property is contrary to N.D.C.C. § 57-23-01, which provides that "assessments of any taxable property in excess of the full and true value in money are subject to correction and abatement and refund." When a Board denies a request to abate such an assessment, it acts contrary to the legislature's directive, and the Court will conclude the abatement denial is arbitrary and unreasonable. In tax abatement and refund proceedings, taxing authorities may consider information that does not meet the standards for admissibility of evidence in court.

A district court has greater liberty in granting motions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) when the matter involves a default judgment rather than a judgment following a full trial on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties or their privies. A party appearing in an action in one capacity, individual or representative, is not thereby bound by or entitled to the benefits of the rules of res judicata in a subsequent action in which he appears in another capacity.

A person may be arrested for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol if the vehicle is located on private property in a private area to which the public has a right of access. Whether property is a private area to which the public has a right of access is a question of fact, which may be determined by factors including: the existence or absence of signs, gates, or barriers whether or not there is routine use by the public not specifically invited to use the property, such as for purposes of visiting, making deliveries, or otherwise interacting with the owner and the location of the vehicle on the property.

A motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims in the complaint, and it must not be granted unless it discloses with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted. A person that wrongfully dissociates from a limited liability company is liable to the company and the other members for damages the dissociation causes.

The exclusionary rule previously codified within N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) did not apply to a test obtained pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01.1.

A party seeking termination of parental rights must prove all the elements by clear and convincing evidence. If a petitioner proves his or her case under the clear and convincing standard of proof, then a district court has discretion to decide whether to terminate parental rights.

An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A district court's order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

If the district court finds certain past income is an unreliable indicator of the obligor's future income, the court must explain why the income it utilized in determining the child support obligation was appropriate. If the district court bases a child support obligation on an income earned in less than a 12-month period, the court must explain why it did not utilize the evidence it had to extrapolate an income for a 12-month period. Pursuant to N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-02(9), each child support order must include a statement of the net income of the obligor used to determine the child support obligation, and how that net income was determined. Generally, a modification of child support should be made effective from the date of the motion to modify, absent good reason to set some other date. If the district court grants a movant relief on a motion to compel discovery, either in whole or in part, and the movant requests attorney's fees, the court must consider whether an award of attorney's fees is appropriate under N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5).

The duty which gives rise to a nuisance claim is the absolute duty not to act in a way which unreasonably interferes with other persons' use and enjoyment of their property. To succeed on a trespass claim, the plaintiff must establish the defendant intentionally entered the land of another, or caused a thing or third person to do so, without the consent of the landowner. A district court's decision granting or denying injunctive relief is equitable in nature, rests within its sound discretion, and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

Criminal judgment entered after a guilty plea is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Exclusion of a chemical test through the application of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(b) is not an available remedy in a criminal proceeding not involving a refusal.

A district court's order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed. Section 39-08-01(1)(f), N.D.C.C., which requires an individual be advised of the consequences of refusing a chemical test, is unambiguous and does not provide informing drivers of the right to refuse a chemical test.

A motion to reconsider an order disposing of a time-tolling post-trial motion does not continue tolling the time to file a notice of appeal. It is not an abuse of discretion to deny an untimely motion.

Criminal conviction for murder summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

A district court's order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A summary judgment in a personal injury action is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. Statutory provisions are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning unless a contrary intention plainly appears. For purposes of WSI benefits, a compensable injury includes a mental or psychological condition caused by a physical injury, but only when the physical injury is determined with reasonable medical certainty to be at least fifty percent of the cause of the condition as compared with all other contributing causes combined, and only when the condition did not preexist the work injury.

In a bench trial, the district court decides credibility issues, and we will not second-guess the district court on its credibility decisions. Indemnity is an equitable remedy that allows a party to recover reimbursement from another for the payment of a liability that, as between the two parties, should have been paid by the other.

Undue influence is improper influence exercised over a grantor in such a way and to such an extent as to destroy his or her voluntary action by substituting for his will the will of another. The essential element in recovering under the doctrine of unjust enrichment is the receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff which would be inequitable to retain without paying for its value. Res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the same parties or their privies. In an unsupervised probate, each proceeding before the court is independent of any other proceeding involving the same estate. Testamentary capacity is examined at the time a will or codicil is executed.

This Court will not consider documents in a party's appendix that did not appear in the district court's record under N.D.R.App.P. 30(a)(1). A party is not entitled to oral argument on a motion to vacate unless they follow the requirements of N.D.R.Ct. 3.2(a)(3) and secure a time for the argument within 14 days of the request. Issues not adequately briefed will not be addressed on appeal. A party's appearance, without a pleading showing a meritorious defense, does not protect a party from default judgment. The district court was not required under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(3) to set forth findings of fact in its order denying the motion to vacate.

The vacancy in Judgeship No. 5 at Cavalier and Langdon, Northeast Judicial District, will be filled in the manner provided by N.D.C.C. Chapter 27-25.

The implied consent requirements of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01 do not apply when an individual consents to a chemical test.

Under the law of the case doctrine, a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues that were resolved in the first appeal or that would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal. The district court has discretion to award costs and attorney's fees in an eminent domain action.

An appeal may be dismissed when an appellant's brief fails to provide a court with an opportunity to meaningfully review the alleged error.

The court lacked jurisdiction to resolve a motion to set aside a judgment during a pending appeal. Whether a stipulated agreement is enforceable will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. The court did not abuse its discretion holding the obligor spouse in contempt for failing to secure a security interest and mortgage of a limited liability company as required by judgment.

Valid service of process is necessary to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant. If a defendant challenges the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving jurisdiction exists. The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. If the court relies only on pleadings and affidavits, the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Although an evidentiary hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, or insufficiency of service of process may be preferable under certain circumstances, the district court nonetheless retains wide discretion and considerable procedural leeway in deciding the motion. A district court's decision whether to grant jurisdictional discovery lies within its sound discretion. WSI has full power and authority to hear and determine all questions within its jurisdiction, and its decisions are final and are entitled to the same faith and credit as a judgment of a court of record. Accord and satisfaction is an affirmative defense to a claim. An essential element of accord and satisfaction is an agreement evidencing the parties' mutual assent. Except for jurisdictional matters and the taking of judicial notice, the appellate court will generally consider only those issues raised in the district court. The appellate court has discretion whether to grant a parties' request for judicial notice on appeal.

Criminal conviction for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

The Canadian statute making it illegal to drive while intoxicated defines an offense equivalent to North Dakota's driving under the influence offense for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 39-06-27(1). The Department has jurisdiction to suspend an operator's license for a conviction under the Canadian statute. A hearing officer does not fail to provide a fair and impartial hearing by holding separate administrative hearings for suspension based on a foreign administrative suspension and foreign criminal conviction.

Criminal conviction for felony reckless endangerment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(3).

The State possesses no statutory right to appeal a restitution order in a criminal case.

A victim's testimony alone is sufficient to establish all the elements of a crime. Under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 608(b), specific instances of conduct, excluding criminal convictions under Rule 609, must be inquired into only on cross-examination for impeachment purposes.

The court did not err in summarily disposing of an application for post-conviction relief after petitioner failed to respond to the State's motion for summary disposition.

Votes cast for an ineligible candidate are counted and considered a protest against the eligible candidate. A governor's constitutional gap-filling appointment authority does not apply when the law provides a method to fill a vacancy. A governor's constitutional gap-filling appointment authority only applies to vacancies in an office, not in a term. Section 16.1-13-10, N.D.C.C., applies to vacancies occurring in the office of a member of the Legislative Assembly.

A property owner must prove actual injury to recover more than nominal damages on a trespass claim. Failure to award nominal damages does not warrant reversal of a judgment unless a significant right or a question of costs is involved. Pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-11, a party must move to amend the pleadings to claim exemplary damages.

Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., serves the twin purposes of (1) preventing one witness' testimony from influencing the testimony of other witnesses and (2) aiding in detecting false testimony and credibility issues. The designation of a trial representative pursuant to Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., is not equivalent to the designation of an organization representative for purpose of deposition testimony as required by Rule 30(b)(6), N.D.R.Civ.P. A lay witness may testify to a matter to which they have personal knowledge. The decision to grant or deny a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be set aside on appeal absent an affirmative showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. Pursuant to the "harmless error" rule, Rule 61, N.D.R.Civ.P., only errors or defects which affect substantial rights of the parties will warrant a new trial.

Any attempt to avoid, defeat or evade a judgment, or to deny its force and effect, in some incidental proceeding not provided for by law, with the express purpose of obtaining relief from that judgment is a collateral attack. The Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act is the exclusive remedy for collaterally challenging the judgment of a conviction.

Orders denying leave to file are not appealable.

Cost of repairs or diminution of value are both appropriate measure of damages for a breach of contract claim related to a duty to repair under a lease.

A divorce judgment is final if the district court adjudicates all claims in the divorce proceeding, and does not reserve disposition of an issue. A district court errs by adopting the parties' parenting plan without all of the information in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-30(2) being included or, after considering the best interests of the child as required by N.D.C.C. § 14-09-30(1), providing its own findings regarding the same.

A stipulation providing for entry of judgment in an amount certain followed by an agreed payment schedule to avoid execution is sufficient to require a district court to enter judgment according to the stipulation.

A stipulation providing for entry of judgment in an amount certain followed by an agreed payment schedule to avoid execution is sufficient to require a district court to enter judgment according to the stipulation.

A defendant cannot successfully argue their waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent when the record demonstrates the defendant's clear desire to represent himself despite an understanding of the risks therein. To challenge a conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, a defendant must move for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 at trial. This Court may not consider whether a district court obviously erred if an appellant fails to argue obvious error on appeal.

A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. We will not reexamine findings of fact made by the trial court upon conflicting evidence, and a choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous.

An eviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

As adopted in North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code (U.T.C.) does not provide for a statutory award of attorney's fees in cases of breach of trust. The adoption of the U.T.C. without Section 1006 did not displace the limited authority to award attorney's fees under the common law in cases of breach of trust. The common fund exception does not apply to cases of breach of trust in which the action was brought by the sole beneficiary of the trust.

N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is clear and unambiguous. When a defendant enters a conditional guilty plea, addressing whether a district court erred in rejecting proposed jury instructions amounts to issuing an advisory opinion.

This Court, in its review, will not weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. We will affirm a district court's decision on a motion to suppress if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. An officer is engaged in the role of community caretaker when the officer approaches a parked vehicle to inquire in a conversational manner whether the occupant is okay or needs assistance. A request that the suspect open the door or roll down the window is permissible, but the same would not be true of an order that he do so.

A district court's finding that plaintiffs obtained property through boundary by acquiescence is affirmed. A district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to award costs and attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-26-01(2) and 28-26-31.

A district court's decision to exclude evidence on the basis it lacks adequate foundation lies within its sound discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion that affected substantial rights. To authenticate evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 901(a), the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. The proponent of offered evidence need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity or conclusively prove that evidence is what it purports to be rather, the proponent must provide proof sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the evidence is what it purports to be. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt.

Court-appointed appellate counsel is not permitted to file an Anders brief in post-conviction relief proceedings.

The State's second petition seeking civil commitment of a sexually dangerous individual was not barred by res judicata. This Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed.

Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., serves the twin purposes of (1) preventing one witness' testimony from influencing the testimony of other witnesses and (2) aiding in detecting false testimony and credibility issues. The designation of a trial representative pursuant to Rule 615, N.D.R.Ev., is not equivalent to the designation of an organization representative for purpose of deposition testimony as required by Rule 30(b)(6), N.D.R.Civ.P. A lay witness may testify to a matter to which they have personal knowledge. The decision to grant or deny a new trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be set aside on appeal absent an affirmative showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. Pursuant to the "harmless error" rule, Rule 61, N.D.R.Civ.P., only errors or defects which affect substantial rights of the parties will warrant a new trial.

Any attempt to avoid, defeat or evade a judgment, or to deny its force and effect, in some incidental proceeding not provided for by law, with the express purpose of obtaining relief from that judgment is a collateral attack. The Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act is the exclusive remedy for collaterally challenging the judgment of a conviction.

A defendant cannot successfully argue their waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent when the record demonstrates the defendant's clear desire to represent himself despite an understanding of the risks therein. To challenge a conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, a defendant must move for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 at trial. This Court may not consider whether a district court obviously erred if an appellant fails to argue obvious error on appeal.

A district court's finding of domestic violence is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. We will not reexamine findings of fact made by the trial court upon conflicting evidence, and a choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous.

An eviction is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

As adopted in North Dakota, the Uniform Trust Code (U.T.C.) does not provide for a statutory award of attorney's fees in cases of breach of trust. The adoption of the U.T.C. without Section 1006 did not displace the limited authority to award attorney's fees under the common law in cases of breach of trust. The common fund exception does not apply to cases of breach of trust in which the action was brought by the sole beneficiary of the trust.

N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is clear and unambiguous. When a defendant enters a conditional guilty plea, addressing whether a district court erred in rejecting proposed jury instructions amounts to issuing an advisory opinion.

This Court, in its review, will not weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. We will affirm a district court's decision on a motion to suppress if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. An officer is engaged in the role of community caretaker when the officer approaches a parked vehicle to inquire in a conversational manner whether the occupant is okay or needs assistance. A request that the suspect open the door or roll down the window is permissible, but the same would not be true of an order that he do so.

A district court's finding that plaintiffs obtained property through boundary by acquiescence is affirmed. A district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to award costs and attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-26-01(2) and 28-26-31.

A district court's decision to exclude evidence on the basis it lacks adequate foundation lies within its sound discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion that affected substantial rights. To authenticate evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 901(a), the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. The proponent of offered evidence need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity or conclusively prove that evidence is what it purports to be rather, the proponent must provide proof sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the evidence is what it purports to be. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt.

Court-appointed appellate counsel is not permitted to file an Anders brief in post-conviction relief proceedings.

The State's second petition seeking civil commitment of a sexually dangerous individual was not barred by res judicata. This Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed.