Slip opinions decided 2022 — North Dakota Reports

Whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact, which will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. The court has discretion in deciding to grant rescission of a contract, and the power should not be exercised lightly.

The district court must comply with the child support guidelines in calculating a parent's child support obligation. The district court must properly calculate a child support obligor's net income to determine the correct amount of support. The district court has discretion to grant a parent's request for a deviation in the amount of the child support obligation for expenses related to the child's private school tuition.

Evidence of other acts or crimes the defendant committed are excluded under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) only when the acts or crimes are independent of the charged crime and do not fit into the rule's exceptions.

Evidence that is suppressed in a criminal case may be admissible in a subsequent civil proceeding. A district court's award of primary residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A district court order summarily dismissing a second application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

A district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision that affirmed a North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance decision denying benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

The ordinary meaning of "mental injury" as used in N.D.C.C. §?14-09-22(1) requires mental suffering and trauma that has some lasting, non-transitory effect.

An oil and gas operator may suspend royalty payments to the mineral owner in the event of a dispute of title existing that would affect distribution of royalty payments. The operator shall make royalty payments to those mineral owners whose title and ownership interest is not in dispute.

The statutory remedy provided in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(a) is limited to administrative proceedings where the driver refused to take a chemical test. Regardless of whether a driver was arrested, the statutory exclusionary rule does not apply in this case, a criminal proceeding where the driver took the chemical test. Issues not raised at the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.

Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-04(1), workforce insurance premium liability must be based on a proportion of the annual expenditure of money by the employer for the service of persons. The information Workforce Safety and Insurance uses to calculate an employer's liability must be indicative of the premiums the employer owes and sufficiently reliable to support the amount. An ALJ's finding that WSI used unreliable information to establish premium liability in this case is supported by the record and affirmed.

A district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitions for name changes when the petitions requested changes in the capitalization of the names from all capital letters to initial capital letters followed by lowercase letters.

The North Dakota Century Code and North Dakota Administrative Code provide extensive laws and regulations related to oil and gas development, including the reclamation of oil wells and bond terms. State law is not preempted by federal law when the well operator can comply with both the state law and federal law. The district court did not err in dismissing the claim as the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit.

A holographic will is valid if the signature and material portions of the document are in the testator's handwriting. Material portions of a holographic will express donative and testamentary intent. A district court's finding that the material portions of a holographic will were not in the testator's handwriting is supported by the record and affirmed.

A judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A demand for a change of judge under N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21 is precluded if the judge has ruled upon any matter pertaining to the action or proceeding in which the demanding party was heard or had an opportunity to be heard.

A district court may consider whether an obligor made a voluntary change in employment, and if they find the obligor did, the district court has the discretion to base the obligor's child support income based on the previous, higher income. A district court's allocation of child tax credits is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. A district court's distribution of marital property is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. This Court reviews the findings as a whole, and they will be upheld on appeal despite relatively insignificant errors in the calculations.

Recovery of attorney's fees by a prevailing plaintiff under N.D.C.C. § 27-08.1-04 is available after the defendant removes a small claims action to the district court. Section 27-08.1-04, N.D.C.C., generally permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney's fees for the district court proceedings and for a successful appeal.

A person arrested and detained without a warrant is entitled to a probable cause determination within 48 hours. If a probable cause determination is not made within 48 hours, the government must demonstrate the existence of an emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. An intervening weekend is not an emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The usual sanction for unlawful detention is the suppression of statements or evidence discovered as a result of the detention. Dismissal of a criminal charge can be warranted in cases of egregious prosecutorial misconduct or on a showing of prejudice.

A motion to modify primary residential responsibility made within two years of an order establishing primary residential responsibility triggers the heightened requirements of N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(1), (3), (5). The district court shall consider a motion to modify primary residential responsibility on briefs and without oral argument or evidentiary hearing and shall deny the motion unless the court finds the moving party has established a prima facie case justifying a modification. Allegations alone do not establish a prima facie case, and affidavits supporting the motion for modification must include competent information, which usually requires the affiant have first-hand knowledge. The district court has discretion to award attorney's fees as part of a remedial sanction for contempt to reimburse the complainant for costs and expenses incurred as a result of the contempt. Whether to administer sanctions under N.D.R.App.P. 13 for noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure is discretionary with this Court.

A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) as the defendant failed to move to dismiss based on a speedy trial violation.

An applicant has the burden to support their application for post-conviction relief with competent admissible evidence once the State moves for summary dismissal. A district court's order denying an applicant's claim of newly discovered evidence and summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief is affirmed.

A road restriction is not published for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 39-12-03(2)(a) unless the information is available in the typical location where a user seeking such information would expect to find it.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

A judgment determining primary residential responsibility of a minor child is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

The Administrative Agencies Practice Act governs this Court's review of the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend a driver's license. Chapter 1-02, N.D.C.C., contains the traditional rules of statutory construction and interpretation. Section 39-20-03.1, N.D.C.C., provides procedures law enforcement must follow after a person has tested over the legal limit for driving under the influence. Section 39-20-04.1, N.D.C.C., provides the Department of Transportation's authority to sanction a driver who has tested over the legal limit for driving under the influence. Section 39-20-04.1(1), N.D.C.C., does not mention the timing of law enforcement forwarding the report, so the five-day directive to law enforcement in N.D.C.C. 39-20-03.1(4) does not affect the Department's authority to suspend driving privileges. When no remedy is provided by statute for a statutory violation, this Court looks at whether the victim of the violation was prejudiced.

A motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is not automatically converted to a motion for summary judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56 when a party submits additional materials outside the pleadings, and the court has discretion in deciding whether to exclude the additional materials. A pleading that states a claim for relief is not required to have detailed factual allegations, but it must have more than labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a claim.

A district court's admission of prior bad acts evidence without the required three-step analyis was harmless error. Absent a stipulation offered from a defendant, a court does not abuse its discretion in allowing the name and nature of a felony charge to be admitted into evidence to prove an element of the offense of preventing arrest.

An order denying a request to lift the supervision requirement on parenting time is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Traffic violations, even if common or minor, provide officers with reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. The term "driveway" means "a private way of access that allows drivers to reach a private place from a public road."

Property damage caused by faulty workmanship is a covered occurrence under an insurance policy to the extent the faulty workmanship causes bodily injury or property damage to property other than the insured's defective work product. Exclusions from coverage in an insurance policy must be clear and explicit and are strictly construed against the insurer. When a conflict exists between the provisions of an insurance policy and an attached endorsement, the provisions of the endorsement prevail.

An applicant for post-conviction relief has a statutory right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, but an applicant may not claim he received ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel.

An issue is moot when the determination sought will not have any practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy.

The force required for gross sexual imposition is that which compels the victim to submit. The location of the crime is not a statutory element of a criminal offense. The North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for venue in the county where the crime occurred. A defendant's objection on one specified ground did not preserve the appeal for another, unspecified ground. When prosecutorial misconduct is alleged for the first time on appeal, the standard of review is obvious error.

An attempted appeal from an order for judgment will be treated as an appeal from a subsequently entered consistent judgment, if one exists. A district court is generally not required to do a line-by-line best-interest analysis for each individual child, but factual findings should be stated with sufficient specificity for reviewing court to understand basis for its decision. Expert testimony is unnecessary for a showing that physical or emotional harm is likely to result from parenting time, and general testimony of a parent may suffice. Visitation with a noncustodial parent may be temporarily suspended where it is likely to endanger the children's physical or emotional health. District court order granting sole decisionmaking authority to custodial parent must be in the children's best interests. Visitation provisions controlled by custodial parent should be utilized only in exceptional circumstances and when custodial parent demonstrates willingness to foster parent-child relationship. Custodial parent may be permitted to monitor visitation between children and noncustodial parent.

A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a legal defense if there is evidence to support it. In determining whether the jury should have received an instruction on a particular defense, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. If the district court evaluates the evidence supporting a proposed defense and declines to charge on that defense, it dilutes the defendant's jury trial by removing the issue from the jury's consideration.

A district court's decision on a motion for a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The law of the case doctrine and the mandate rule restrict proceedings on remand to the district court. Jury instructions should fairly inform the jury of the law applicable to the case.

Judgeship retained at Fargo.

An appeal is not moot when the appellant fails to request a stay on an order directing the sale of homestead property if the property was sold to a party interested in the action and the sale is not yet final. In proceedings to force the sale of homestead property to satisfy a judgment, there must be an execution levied upon the property at the time of the petition for an appraisal of the property.

The purpose of jury instructions is to correctly and adequately advise the jury of the applicable law. Jury instruction must not be misleading or confusing. A conviction will be reversed based on an erroneous jury instruction only if it relates to a central subject in the case and affects a defendant's substantial rights. When a defendant faces multiple counts of the same offense, the jury instructions must identify the act underlying each count and factually distinguish between the counts or instruct the jury to unanimously agree on the act for each offense. The elements of a crime may require different mental states. The term "willfully," as defined by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02(1)(e), is not necessarily inconsistent with a crime requiring a specific intent.

A district court's summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6), and double costs and attorney's fees are awarded under N.D.R.App.P. 38.

The pre-amendment version of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) unambiguously restrains a district court's authority in probation revocation cases to imposition of the sentence initially imposed, but suspended. When we reinterpreted N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) in Dubois v. State, 2021 ND 153, 963 N.W.2d 543, to correct our prior misinterpretation of the statute, we were declaring what the statute has meant at all times before it was amended effective August 1, 2021. When a defendant is resentenced after revocation of probation, the court imposes an illegal sentence if it resentences the defendant in excess of the suspended sentence imposed in the judgment of conviction.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of criminal trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

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

Prosecution of a crime is authorized in any county where part of the offense occurred. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, this Court on appeal looks only to the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A district court order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

When supervising a partnership's dissolution, a district court has discretion to decide what is fair and equitable under the circumstances. Valuation is a question of fact. This Court presumes a district court's valuations are correct, and a valuation within the range of evidence presented at trial is not clearly erroneous.

When this Court remands for the district court to review an executive session of a board in-camera, the directive for an in-camera review becomes the law of the case when challenged on appeal. Section 44-04-19.1(5), N.D.C.C., defining an attorney consultation exemption for open meetings, is unambiguous and provides two separate avenues for a governing body to close an open meeting. Portions of a meeting recording that do not fit within the definition of "attorney consultation" must be made public. While attorney's fees are not mandated when a party brings forth a civil action rather than an administrative action alleging an open records violation, the type of action brought and how much information the party receives are not rational considerations in deciding whether to award attorney's fees.

Courts have broad discretion when deciding whether to grant leave to amend a complaint. Amendments correcting technical deficiencies relate back to the date of the original pleading. Agencies of political subdivisions are public entities subject to the open records law. "Agencies" refers to a relationship created by law or contract whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business to another. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records. The plain meaning of "provided by law" does not operate to create additional open records exemptions arising from court rules defining privileges and discovery limitations. Rule 502, N.D.R.Ev., is an evidentiary rule applicable to court proceedings, and does not create a specific exception to the open records law. Under N.D.R.Ev. 502(d)(7), there generally is no attorney-client privilege as to a communication between a public officer or agency and its lawyers. A public entity's attorney work product must be made available for public disclosure following completion of litigation, unless disclosure would have an adverse fiscal effect on the conduct or settlement of other pending or reasonably predictable civil or criminal litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings, or the attorney work product reflects mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories regarding potential liability of a public entity. If the potential for liability is entirely in the past, the record is no longer exempt. Only if the records relate to circumstances for which there remains a genuine potential for liability may the records remain exempt. Under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1), awarding costs and attorney's fees is discretionary and a court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

A district court order summarily dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. A district court may not order summary disposition in response to a request in a pleading, including the State's answer to an application for post-conviction relief.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Criminal judgments entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of providing false information to law enforcement, burglary, and theft of property are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

When spousal support is awarded, the district court is not required to provide a detailed calculation of the requesting spouse's need for support, but the court is required to provide a discernable basis for its decision.

Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, this Court first determines whether the prosecutor's actions were misconduct, then examines whether the misconduct had a prejudicial effect. A curative jury instruction generally removes prejudice caused my improper statements because the jury is presumed to follow a court's instruction. The North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require a district court to state findings on the record when a motion is made during trial.

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

A district court's contempt decision will only be disturbed on appeal if the court abused its discretion. Technical violations of a court order do not necessarily require a finding of contempt. A party seeking to modify primary residential responsibility who provides competent evidence demonstrating a prima facie case for modification is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

The law of the case doctrine applies when an appellate court has decided a legal question and remanded to the district court for further proceedings, and a party cannot on a second appeal relitigate issues which were resolved by the Court in the first appeal or which would have been resolved had they been properly presented in the first appeal. The mandate rule requires the district court to follow the appellate court's pronouncements on legal issues in subsequent proceedings in the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms. Laches is a delay or lapse of time in commencing an action that works a disadvantage or prejudice to the adverse party because of a change in conditions during the delay. A court has broad discretion under N.D.C.C. § 32-03-05 in determining whether to award prejudgment interest. In an equitable proceeding there is no absolute right to a trial by jury. Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1), a party moving for an order compelling discovery must certify that it has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. The Court reviews an order compelling discovery under the abuse of discretion standard. A district court is considered an expert in determining the amount of attorney's fees, and its decision concerning the amount and reasonableness of the attorney's fees will not be overturned on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Electronic legal research fees are a component of attorney's fees and cannot be separately taxed as expenses.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the request for a continuance. The district court's property valuations were not clearly erroneous. An award of parenting time with appropriate restrictions is not clearly erroneous when based on evidence in the record. When a child support obligor is underemployed, the district court is permitted under the child support guidelines to impute income to the obligor. The district court has inherent authority to award attorney's fees as a sanction for a litigant's misconduct.

This Court's power to issue supervisory writs is discretionary and is used only to rectify errors and prevent injustice where no adequate alternative remedy exists. Peer review records are privileged and not subject to discovery in any civil action. When a party withholds discoverable information because it is privileged, the party must expressly make a claim of privilege and describe the nature of the documents in a manner that, without revealing the information, enables other parties to assess the claim. We look first at the words of the peer review statute, then determine how they apply to the procedure established by N.D.R.Civ.P. 26. District Courts have discretion to conduct an in camera review of documents if a party challenges a claim of privilege identified in an adequate privilege log.

Section 39-08-01(1)(a), N.D.C.C., provides that a person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle upon a highway or upon public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use in this state if that person has an alcohol concentration of at least eight one-hundredths of one percent by weight at the time of the performance of a chemical test within two hours after the driving or being in actual physical control of a vehicle. At an administrative hearing, a report and notice form is prima facie evidence of its contents, including the time of driving. The time of driving may be placed into question at the administrative hearing, such as by cross-examining the testifying officer at the hearing. While reasonable inferences can be drawn from the evidence at an administrative hearing, a reasoning mind must be able to reasonably find the Department met its burden of proving the chemical test was administered within two hours of the time of the driving.

An order denying the elimination or modification of a spousal support obligation affects a substantial right and can be appealed to this Court. A voluntary payment of an award of attorney's fees renders the issue moot and waives the party's right to appeal that issue. Whether there has been a material change in circumstances warranting modification or elimination of the spousal support obligation is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Section 14-05.24.1, N.D.C.C., dealing with spousal support awards, does not provide for retroactive effect. Where there was no change to a 2006 judgment, the statute cannot be applied retroactively.

The Court does not render advisory opinions, and an appeal will be dismissed if the issues become? moot? or academic, leaving no actual controversy to be determined. An appeal is not moot if the district court's decision continues to have collateral consequences for the appealing party. Collateral consequences cannot be too remote or speculative and cannot be duplicative of preexisting consequences.

A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

A district court order denying a petition for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

When a defendant enters a conditional guilty plea, this Court reviews an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. Reviewing a district court's decision to reject jury instructions would be an advisory opinion.

An amended judgment awarding a parent primary residential responsibility is summarily affirmed.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

An amended judgment and money judgment awarding a parent primary residential responsibility and attorney's fees is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

If the State moves for summary dismissal of an application for postconviction relief, the applicant must present competent admissible evidence which raises a genuine issue of material fact.

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

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of indecent exposure is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Amended judgment entered after a bench trial summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (2).

A district court order summarily dismissing an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

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

Orders summarily dismissing applications for postconviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

A local governing body's decision on tax rebate and abatement applications is reviewed under the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard. Applications for abatement or refund of property taxes must be filed in the office of the county auditor on or before November first of the year following the year in which the tax becomes delinquent. Taxpayer's applications for abatement or refund of property taxes which were not filed before November first of the year following the year in which the taxes became delinquent were untimely.

An interlocutory order is only appealable when there is a statutory basis for the appeal and the district court has complied with the requirements of N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The definition of "record" provided by N.D.C.C. § 44-04-17.1(16) does not require a public entity use information in a specific way for it to constitute a record. Chapters 44-04 and 54-46, N.D.C.C., apply to information received by a public entity in connection with "official" or "public" business. A party requesting additional discovery under N.D.R.Civ.P. 56(f) must "identify with specificity" the additional information it seeks and explain why that information would preclude summary judgment. When a party has failed to perfect a cross appeal it may not seek a more favorable result on appeal than it received in the district court.

A person has standing to appeal from an order denying intervention. The mere fact that the parties have reached a settlement agreement is not itself sufficient to deny a motion to intervene relating to issues collateral to the settlement agreement. An administrative agency has statutory authority to issue a protection order if the agency acts as an administrative hearing officer. A document subject to open records laws may be withheld from disclosure if the document or parts of the document fall within a statutory exemption.

This Court exercises its supervisory authority rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. Quick take eminent domain offers a property owner less protection because the condemnor can take possession of the property before trial on the amount of just compensation due. A water resource district may acquire an easement for a right of way for flood control projects by quick take eminent domain.

This Court adopts the two-part review articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998) to determine whether land is a dependent Indian community and therefore Indian country. The party challenging the state district court's jurisdiction has the burden to prove the district court lacks jurisdiction. A contractual provision, in itself, cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court.

An order denying a motion to modify primary residential responsibility and an order denying a motion for reconsideration are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

A district court pre-filing order against vexatious litigant under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A pre-filing order under N.D. Sup. Ct. R. 58 must be issued by the presiding judge of a judicial district, and the district court abuses its discretion if a pre-filing order is issued by any other judge. Orders denying leave to file new motions or documents are not appealable. If a court does not rule on a motion, it may be deemed denied. An award of attorney's fees and double costs on appeal is granted for frivolous arguments.

District court order discharging trustee, closing the trust, and concluding supervised administration is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A district court's decision to award parenting time to a noncustodial parent is based on the child's best interests and not the wishes of the parents. This Court may rely on implied findings of fact when the record enables it to understand factual determinations made by the district court.

Satisfaction of an independent undisputed portion of a judgment does not operate as a full waiver of the right to appeal. Res judicata and the law of the case doctrine do not bar litigation of the same type of claim based on different facts. Under N.D.C.C. § 58-18-08, a trustee may not be exculpated for breaches of trust committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference to the purposes of the trust. Absent the requisite findings and analysis, review of a district court decision is not possible and remand is appropriate.

A criminal judgment entered after a defendant pled guilty to criminal vehicular homicide is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

The primary purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent. Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears. The district court has discretion over evidentiary matters, including a decision to exclude the testimony of a witness.

A defendant's release from prison renders his sentencing appeal moot if he is not subject to supervised release or probation after completing his prison term.

A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party. The "invited error doctrine" applies unless a constitutional error is structural, and defendant conceded any alleged error was not constitutional.

A district court's N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 vexatious litigant pre-filing order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

A dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not appealable because either side may commence another action. When deciding a due process claim, we consider whether a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest is at stake and, if so, whether minimum procedural due process requirements were met. WSI is required to notify an employer of the premiums and penalties that employer owes to WSI, and if the employer fails to pay that amount within thirty days, WSI may collect the premiums and penalties by civil action. Under the North Dakota and U.S. Constitutions, excessive fines shall not be imposed. The federal excessive fines clause is violated if the fine is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense.

An underemployed child support obligor did not provide evidence to establish the N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-07(5) exception for imputation of income based on the unavailability of employment applied.

When a party challenges an underlying order prohibiting contact in a proceeding for violating that order, the challenge constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying order.

A district court's dismissal of a criminal information is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A criminal information must identify the defendant, and must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the elements of the offense charged.

District court orders denying petitions for name changes and requests for evidentiary hearings are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

The district court may exercise its inherent power to sanction when a party violates the duty to preserve evidence and destroys evidence relevant to the lawsuit. The duty to preserve evidence may be discharged and the evidence may be destroyed if the custodial party has a legitimate need to destroy the evidence and has provided sufficient notice to the other parties allowing for a full and fair opportunity to inspect the evidence.

A district court has broad discretion on evidentiary matters and over the conduct of a hearing. A ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. The right to closing arguments can be waived by the parties and narrowed by the courts, but it cannot be unilaterally denied. To modify parenting time, a movant must establish a material change of circumstances has occurred since the prior parenting time order and that it is in the child's best interests to modify the order. A demand for change of judge, once granted, carries forward in any particular case, even when a new proceeding is filed in a divorce case triggering a new judge assignment. The Supreme Court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party to an appeal, enter a pre-filing order prohibiting a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state as a self-represented party without first obtaining leave of a judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed.

Future medical expenses may be awarded as restitution to a crime victim if the amount can be ascertained from the evidence presented at a restitution hearing.

This Court may consider an obvious error that affects substantial rights. Jury instructions must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law. Instructing the jury on the wrong subdivision of law is a plain error. Sustaining a conviction based on jury instructions that do not require findings on every essential element of the charged crime violates due process.

A district court's order denying an application for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Parental rights may be terminated upon a finding of abandonment. A party seeking termination of parental rights must prove all elements by clear and convincing evidence. Section 14-16-06(1), N.D.C.C., permits termination of parental rights in an adoption proceeding.

A district court may modify residential responsibility if it finds a material change in circumstances and modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. To warrant modification, the material change in circumstances must adversely affect the child or result in a general decline in the child's condition.

The owner of a limited liability company generally is not liable for the company's debts, obligations, or other liabilities. District courts must sufficiently address each factor considered in piercing a company's veil and explain how the factors do or do not apply.

Criminal judgments entered after the defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, fourth or greater offense, are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (8).

A formal, evidentiary hearing is required whenever an administrative agency acts in a quasi-judicial capacity unless the parties either agree otherwise or there is no dispute of a material fact. A summary judgment is inappropriate if a fact-finder must draw inferences and make findings on disputed facts to support its decision. Even when facts are undisputed, a summary judgment may not be granted if reasonable differences of opinion exist as to the inferences to be drawn from those facts.

A comment on a defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In considering whether counsel's failure to object to a Doyle violation establishes a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different in the postconviction relief context, the district court must consider the factors outlined in State v. Wilder, 2018 ND 93, ¶ 9, 909 N.W.2d 684. They include: (1) the use to which the prosecution puts the post arrest silence (2) who elected to pursue the line of questioning (3) the quantum of other evidence indicative of guilt (4) the intensity and frequency of the reference and (5) the availability to the trial judge of an opportunity to grant a motion for mistrial or to give curative instructions. A witness's isolated reference to a defendant's invocation of his right to counsel, without further elaboration or further mention by the State at any other time during the trial or in closing arguments, does not warrant a new trial for the defendant.

An appellant must satisfy statutory requirements for perfecting an appeal to the district court from an administrative agency decision for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction. A petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy and that they have a clear legal right to performance of the act sought to be compelled by the writ. Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(2), an employer is required to file a request for reconsideration of a Workforce Safety and Insurance notice of decision within the statutory time limit, and the time requirement is not extended by N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(e).

The Industrial Commission's jurisdiction does not depend solely on the filing of an application, but instead on the jurisdictional fact of intent. The Commission has the authority and duty to investigate potential violations of its regulations, including a failure to obtain a permit or file a bond. The Commission has regularly pursued its authority, and its findings and conclusions that an operator began construction on a treating plant prior to obtaining a permit or filing a bond in violation of N.D. Admin. Code ch. 43-02-03 are sustained by the law and by substantial and credible evidence.

A district court's restitution order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found a defendant guilty of gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

A disorderly conduct restraining order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Disorderly conduct means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person. There are limits on free speech and not all speech is constitutionally protected.

While this Court defers to a tribe on its membership determinations, without consistent and clear factual findings supporting the application of ICWA and North Dakota heightened review for Indian families, this Court is unable to determine the father's issues on appeal. The Court retains jurisdiction and remands for the juvenile court to clarify its findings on ICWA and heightened state law and to hold additional evidentiary proceedings if necessary.

An issue not properly preserved for appeal is limited to whether the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting substantial rights. A substantial right has not been denied unless the violation significantly prejudiced the defendant. Defendant failed to show how he was significantly prejudiced by the late disclosure or admission of a redacted video.

When the defendant does not raise a public challenge to any of the violations he asserts on appeal, this Court concludes any potential error should be treated as a forfeited error, subject to a review as an obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Closures of pretrial hearings implicate the public trial right. When the district court makes no Waller findings, there is a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial constituting obvious error. Given our case law strictly requiring analysis of the Waller factors, we must reverse for a new trial to ensure the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the justice system.

Except for a clerical error, an amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4), and remanded to correct the error.

A criminal judgment entered after the trial court found the defendant guilty of disorderly conduct is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Juvenile court orders terminating parental rights are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

The probable cause showing required at a preliminary hearing is a minimal burden of proof. The felony enhancement of hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03(2)(a) requires the State to establish probable cause to believe a person knew of conduct of another and the known conduct constituted a class AA, A or B felony.

A district court's orders for hospitalization and involuntary treatment with medication are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

District courts "shall take into account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim or victims of the criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the defendant's criminal action" in determining restitution amounts. Self-defense operates as a bar to conviction rather than to reduce or eliminate restitution.

A Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to admit or exclude evidence will be reversed on appeal only if the hearing officer abused her discretion. Hearing exhibit provided documentary evidence establishing an Intoxilyzer 8000 device was installed by a field inspector.

A district court's valuations of marital property are not clearly erroneous if they are within the range of evidence, and the value the court gives to marital property depends on the evidence presented. Both economic and noneconomic fault may be considered in dividing marital property, but evidence presented may indicate both parties must share responsibility for the failure of the marriage. Section 14-05-24(1), N.D.C.C. (2017), is not ambiguous and the district court does not have discretion to choose a valuation date for the marital estate. A court clearly errs by including property acquired after the valuation date provided by statute. District court requiring one party to continue to pay post-separation marital expenses was equitable, as paying party had greater earnings and earning capacity and the obligation to pay had predetermined end date. Rehabilitative spousal support may be awarded to provide receiving spouse with opportunity to acquire education, training, work skills, or experience to become self-sustaining. A district court abuses its discretion by awarding attorney's fees without proper statutory authority and without specific findings relating to ability to pay and need.

A tribal court restraining order is not entitled to full faith and credit in North Dakota state courts if the tribal court did not have personal or subject matter jurisdiction over the parties or matter.

A party opposing a motion to summarily dismiss a claim for post-conviction relief is entitled to all reasonable inferences and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if a reasonable inference raises a genuine issue of material fact. A claim for post-conviction relief may be deemed abandoned if it is not further developed after it is first made in the application for post-conviction relief.

When the district court fails to adequately explain the legal basis for its decision, appellate review of the decision is not possible and remand is appropriate.

Greater liberty should be used when considering an N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment when the matter involves a default judgment rather than a judgment on the merits. A motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) should not be used to relieve a party from free, calculated, and deliberate choices. A party is obligated to take legal steps to protect his or her interests. Courts should grant an N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment when it is prompt and contains an answer disclosing a meritorious defense.

To determine whether an individual has serious difficulty in controlling behavior, all relevant conduct may be considered. Both conduct in proximity to the hearing as well as past conduct is relevant in determining serious difficulty controlling behavior, and the conduct need not be sexual in nature.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment and unlawful possession of a firearm is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

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

An issue must be ripe for review for the court to adjudicate it, and an issue is not ripe for review if it depends on future contingencies which may or may not occur.

A party may not merely recite conclusory general allegations that additional discovery is needed. A political subdivision may not be held liable for claims based on the decision to perform or the refusal to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty.

A lawyer violates N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness. A lawyer violates N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 by failing to reasonably communicate with a client regarding their case. A lawyer violates N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.16 by failing to take reasonable steps to protect a client's interests. Disbarment is an appropriate sanction when a lawyer causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client.

A district court may summarily dispose of an application for postconviction relief if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On an application for postconviction relief from a guilty plea claiming an exception to the statute of limitations under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3) based on newly discovered evidence, the district court should consider whether the evidence was discovered after the guilty plea, whether the failure to learn about the evidence before the plea was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence, and whether the newly discovered evidence is material to what would have been the issues at trial. The court should also determine whether, if proved and reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, the newly discovered evidence would establish that the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which the petitioner was convicted. An application for postconviction relief asserting a new interpretation of law must establish the interpretation is retroactively applicable and must be filed within two years of the date the decision announcing the new interpretation is published.

A person bringing a claim against the state or a state employee for an injury shall present to the director of the office of management and budget within 180 days after the alleged injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered a written notice of claim as provided by statute. The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction absent a timely filing of a notice of claim. Because a court's dismissal of claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits, the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion do not foreclose a subsequent action to adjudicate those claims. However, claim preclusion prohibits the relitigation of claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties or their privies and which was resolved by a final judgment on the merits. Under N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 6.5, no lawsuit may be instituted against any complainant or witness in a lawyer disciplinary matter based on their communications to the board and its secretary, district inquiry committees, hearing panels, or counsel relating to lawyer misconduct or disability. The affirmative defense that the statute of limitations has run must be pled by answer. An appellate court is a court of review, not of first view. If a party opposing a summary judgment motion shows by declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion (2) order a continuance to enable declarations to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken or (3) issue any other just order. In civil actions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party if it finds a claim for relief was frivolous.

Brief sidebars or bench conferences conducted during trial to address routine evidentiary or administrative issues outside the hearing of the jury ordinarily will not implicate the public trial right. Non-public exchanges between counsel and the court on such technical legal issues and routine administrative problems do not hinder the objectives which the Court in Waller observed were fostered by public trials. If it would be unreasonable to conclude the defendant's absence had any effect on the proceedings or the result, such an error is harmless and does not warrant a reversal. We consider jury instructions as a whole, and determine whether they correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law, even though part of the instructions when standing alone may be insufficient or erroneous. If juror misconduct is noticed and the criminal defendant does not object or request a mistrial, reversal requires obvious error. We exercise our power to consider obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice. This Court has carved out a narrow exception to the general rule that statutes are not retroactive unless expressly declared so by the Legislature when the statute in question involves an ameliorating penal amendment to a criminal statute.

To resolve a facial challenge, we need only interpret the challenged legislation and the relevant constitutional provisions to determine whether there is a conflict. North Dakota law has long established that surface owners have a property interest in pore space. Surface owners have a right to compensation for the use of their pore space for disposal and storage operations. Government-authorized physical invasions of property constitute the "clearest sort of taking" and therefore are a per se taking. A statute that strips surface owners of their right to possess, use, and exclude others from pore space within their lands and assigns that right to oil and gas operators without surface owners' consent or compensation is a per se taking. It is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part and that if the valid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand. 42 U.S.C. § 1988 authorizes attorney's fees to a prevailing challenger of a federal constitutional claim in state court against the state or a state official sued in his or her official capacity regardless of whether §§ 1983 and 1988 are expressly pled in the complaint.

A court's determination that a nonparent did not establish a prima facie case to support an award of nonparent visitation is reviewed de novo. If the nonparent fails to plead a prima facie case that the nonparent "[i]s a consistent caretaker or . . . [h]as a substantial relationship with the child and denial of custody or visitation would result in harm to the child," a court shall dismiss the petition for nonparent visitation.

Deference is given to an administrative agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations. Administrative regulation for excluding autism voucher program funding as a parental responsibility did not involve complex and technical matters calling for agency expertise, and the Department of Human Services' interpretation was not entitled to appreciable deference.

An amended judgment entered after revocation must total up all time served for the offense, including time served on the original sentence and time served prior to the revocation hearing, to ensure a defendant does not serve more than the maximum possible sentence for the offense.

A vested child support obligation cannot be retroactively modified. The child support guidelines contemplate child support payments by the parent without primary residential responsibility to the parent with primary residential responsibility. Parties generally bear their own attorney's fees unless the fees are expressly authorized by statute.

A district court may allow a child who is of sufficient maturity to testify about his or her preferences relating to residential responsibility. A district court generally cannot delegate to anyone the power to decide questions of residential responsibility. A district court may not rely solely on a child's wishes when deciding residential responsibility.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court's power to hear and determine the general subject involved in the action. The United States Bankruptcy Code vested the bankruptcy trustee with title to the bankrupt's assets. Upon an appeal from a civil judgment, this Court may modify the judgment to correct an error. Section 28-26-06(2), N.D.C.C., requires disbursements to the prevailing party for procuring evidence in preparation or use at trial.

The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act applies to instances where a detainer has been filed against a person imprisoned in a correctional institution in the state of North Dakota. The Detainers Act requires trial to take place within 90 days of filing a request for disposition of pending charges subject to exceptions. Counsel can waive trial within 90 days under the Detainers Act. Criminal defendants are entitled to counsel at all critical stages of prosecution. A critical stage of prosecution is a time in which counsel's absence might derogate from the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial.

The doctrine of issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues decided in a prior action. To bring a derivative action on behalf of a partnership, a litigant must be a partner at the time the action is commenced.

Under N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01, a claimant may appeal from a final action of Workforce Safety and Insurance to the district court of the county where the injury was inflicted or of the county in which they reside, and the claimant has the burden to show the district court has jurisdiction.

Whether to grant a mistrial is within the district court's discretion, which this Court will not reverse on appeal absent an abuse of such discretion. In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, this Court first determines whether the prosecutor's actions were misconduct, then examines whether the misconduct had prejudicial effect. The purpose of an opening statement is to inform the jury about the case and to outline to the jury the proof the State expects to present. Curative jury instructions will generally remove prejudice caused by improper statements because the jury is presumed to follow the district court's instruction.

Orders denying a party permission to file new motions are not appealable. An order imposing attorney's fees may be appealable depending on whether the district court intended the order to be final. A demand for a change of judge is invalid if it is filed more than ten days after the notice of assignment of a judge.

A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of terrorizing and criminal trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a).

The North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in post-conviction relief proceedings to the extent they do not conflict with the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act. Application of the newly discovered evidence exception to the N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01 statute of limitations for post-conviction relief petitions requires the petitioner allege that the newly discovered evidence would establish the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he or she was convicted. Issues that were not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.

An obligation arises from the parties' contract or the operation of law. A well operator has a statutory obligation to pay royalties to a mineral interest owner whether the interest is leased or unleased.

A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

The Secretary of State misapplies the law by excluding qualified elector signatures on circulated petitions on the basis of a determination that a pattern of likely notary violations on some petitions permitted the wholesale invalidation of all signatures on all petitions that were sworn before the same notary.

Satisfaction of an independent undisputed portion of a judgment does not operate as a full waiver of the right to appeal. Res judicata and the law of the case doctrine do not bar litigation of the same type of claim based on different facts. Under N.D.C.C. § 58-18-08, a trustee may not be exculpated for breaches of trust committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference to the purposes of the trust. Absent the requisite findings and analysis, review of a district court decision is not possible and remand is appropriate.

Jurisdiction to modify an existing child custody determination is made independent from registration and enforcement of a foreign determination. The moving party under a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is permitted to file a reply brief but is not entitled to file supplemental evidentiary materials. To establish a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility, a party must show a general decline in the condition of the child or a change that has adversely affected the child. An evidentiary hearing is not required if a party fails to make a prima facie case.

Three amended criminal judgments are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) because the appellant's brief did not contain the minimum requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28.

A criminal judgment of driving under the influence and driving under suspension is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.35.1(a)(2) and (7).

An award of equal residential responsibility of a minor child is remanded to the district court to make specific findings of fact on whether the domestic violence rebuttable presumption under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) is triggered and, if so, whether the presumption is rebutted.

Dismissal of complaint alleging quiet title to land is summarily affirmed under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 because warranty deed failed to meet requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05. Dismissal of motions for reconsideration are summarily affirmed for failing to meet grounds for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) or 60(b).

Dismissal of complaint alleging quiet title to land is summarily affirmed under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 because warranty deed failed to meet requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05.??

A transfer in writing is called a grant. A grant takes effect upon its delivery. For a delivery to occur, a grantor must intend to pass title. Delivery of a grant with intent that title transfer upon some contingency or condition is prohibited. A conditional delivery is absolute. The rules of contract interpretation apply to oil and gas leases. Contracts executed together concerning the same subject matter may be read and construed together, but they retain their separate identity. Extrinsic evidence, including another agreement, may not be used to alter the unambiguous terms of an oil and gas lease. An unrecorded instrument encumbering real estate is valid as to those with notice of the instrument.

A person bringing a claim against the State for an injury shall present to the director of the office of management and budget within 180 days after the alleged injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered a written notice. Civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to commit an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, the principal element of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another and an overt act that results in damages. A civil conspiracy generally requires the underlying act itself to be actionable as a tort claim. A physical taking is where the government requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her property. Total regulatory takings occur when regulations completely deprive an owner of all economically beneficial use of her property. Unjust enrichment requires an enrichment, an impoverishment, a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, an absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and an absence of remedy provided by law. Section 1983, 42 U.S.C., provides a cause of action against a state actor depriving a citizen of a constitutional right.

A district court order denying a motion to modify residential responsibility and denying a motion to reconsider is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (4).

Rule 43 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure is intended to provide a mechanism for substitution of a party who dies after proceedings in the district court have concluded. Under Rule 43(a)(3), an attorney may file a notice of appeal on behalf of a decedent if he or she was "entitled to appeal" before dying. If a party dies during proceedings in the district court—i.e., before the party is entitled to appeal, North Dakota Rule of Civil Procedure 25 applies.

A district court does not abuse its discretion when it dismisses an application for post-conviction relief where the applicant failed to provide any evidentiary support for the claims.

Whether a defendant is competent to enter a plea is a question of fact, and a district court's finding on the issue will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, as we recognize the district court is in a superior position to assess credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence. In a post-conviction relief proceeding to withdraw a guilty plea, the defendant must prove a manifest injustice requires withdrawal of a guilty plea.

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

Upon a defendant's written request, a prosecuting attorney must disclose all documents and objects material to the defense for use in preparation for trial. Parties have a continuing duty to supplement criminal discovery responses. A district court should impose the least severe sanction that will rectify the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party. A district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for mistrial.

A trial court may avoid a violation of the public trial right by summarizing on the record what was discussed at the conference, the conference must have occurred in open court, and both parties to the action must have an opportunity to object to the accuracy of the court's summary or supplement the record as to the off-the-record events. The potential for harm exists whenever one person points a firearm at another individual.

Criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). Review of a restitution order is limited to whether the district court acted within the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard. In determining the restitution amount, the court shall take into account the reasonable damages sustained by the victim of the criminal offense, which damages are limited to those directly related to the criminal offense and expenses actually incurred as a direct result of the defendant's criminal action.

A Job Service North Dakota's decision is affirmed when a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the agency's factual conclusions were proved by the weight of evidence.

A district court's orders for continuing hospitalization and involuntary treatment with medication are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Voluntarily paying a partial undisputed amount of a judgment does not waive a party's right to appeal the remaining disputed amount or other unrelated claims. However, partial satisfaction of a judgment extinguishes the underlying claim. A party bringing a claim for unjust enrichment must sufficiently plead facts supporting their claim that would place the other party on notice of the claim. A party failing to provide supporting argument for their position on appeal waives the issue.

Under N.D.R.App.P.47, questions certified by a foreign court may be answered if the question could be determinative of the proceeding and there is no controlling precedent. The standard for answering questions certified by a foreign court is less stringent than the standard for answering a question certified by a state district court, which requires the question be determinative. Section 38-08-08(1), N.D.C.C., does not require allocation of oil and gas production from one spacing unit to another. The North Dakota Supreme Court will not answer certified questions absent development of the factual record because doing so exposes the court to the danger of improvidently deciding issues.

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. Under WSI administrative rule, a mental or psychological condition must be directly caused by a physical injury. To be directly caused it must be shown with objective medical evidence that the mental or psychological condition is the physiological product of the physical injury.

A party to a divorce action who accepts benefits pursuant to a divorce judgment does not waive the right to appeal from the judgment, overruling prior case law applying the general rule that acceptance of substantial benefits under the divorce judgment waived the right to appeal. The court must limit discovery if it determines the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or it can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, parties may contract to the disposition of property upon divorce and to the modification or elimination of spousal support. Procedural unconscionability focuses upon formation of the contract and fairness of the bargaining process, including factors such as inequality of bargaining power, oppression, and unfair surprise. Adequate legal representation will often be the best evidence that a spouse signed a premarital agreement knowledgeably and voluntarily. Substantive unconscionability focuses on the harshness or one-sidedness of the agreement's provisions. A district court's valuation and distribution of marital property are findings of fact. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if there is no evidence to support it, or if, after reviewing the entirety of the evidence, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. A spousal support award must be based on both the supporting spouse's needs and ability to pay and the receiving spouse's income and needs. Similarly, the primary standard to award attorney's fees under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-23 is consideration of one spouse's needs and the other spouse's ability to pay. Reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded on appeal if any party has been dilatory in prosecuting the appeal.

In an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a criminal defendant must demonstrate (1) counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

To establish a new boundary line by the doctrine of acquiescence, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that both parties recognized the line as a boundary, and not a mere barrier, for at least 20 years prior to the litigation. Whether there has been mutual recognition of a boundary is a question of fact, reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

A criminal judgment of terrorizing subsequent to a plea of guilty is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) & (7).

When a district court has made sufficient findings that demonstrate intent, mutual assent, and sufficient consideration among the parties to substitute a new obligation for an existing one, a finding of novation by the court is not clearly erroneous. The terms of a contract, the character of the transaction, and the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction can establish novation. Parties entering into a novation need not agree about the meaning or terms within the original obligation.

The statutory meaning of "physical disability" within N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3)(a)(2) does not include an inability to access state case law while serving a sentence in a federal prison.

Dismissal of complaint alleging quiet title to land is summarily affirmed under N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 because warranty deed failed to meet the requirements under N.D.C.C. § 47-10-05.

A district court pre-filing vexatious litigant order is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

A city has constitutional authority to franchise a public utility or similar service within the city. The Public Service Commission's authority is limited to that authority provided to it by the legislature. A party may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time.

Disorderly conduct restraining order summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

Generally, statutes in place at the time of commencement of an action apply. A statute may not be retroactively applied unless the statute explicitly states that it is to be applied retroactively or unless this Court can rationally infer from other sources that the legislature intended retroactive application of the statute. Applying the incorrect version of a statute will be considered harmless error if it did not affect a party's substantial rights. A district court's consideration of relevant evidence is not an abuse of discretion. A court's credibility determination regarding testimony given at a bench trial will not be reweighed on appeal. When the district court fails to adequately explain the basis for its decision, appellate review of the decision is not possible and remand is appropriate.

The district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a request for additional discovery where the party requesting fails to identify what information is sought, why they were unable to obtain the information before the motion for summary judgment, and fails to explain how the information would preclude summary judgment. The district court does not err in dismissing a party's affirmative defenses where the party fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to any of the affirmative defenses.

An arbitration award will not be vacated unless it is completely irrational, and an award is completely irrational if the decision is either mistaken on its face or so mistaken as to result in real injustice or constructive fraud.

A district court has broad discretion to exclude extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements at trial, even if a proper foundation has been laid.

Juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction to order termination of parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-03(1)(b). If an agency meets the requirements for termination of parental rights under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and N.D.C.C § 27-20.3-19, this Court will affirm the termination.

A party seeking termination of parental rights must prove all of the statutory elements by clear and convincing evidence. If the party seeking termination proves the statutory elements, the district court has discretion to decide whether to terminate parental rights.

Two district court orders revoking probation and resentencing a defendant are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

A judgment affirming Job Service's decision to deny unemployment benefits is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).