New Opinions: Nov. 21

Chase v. State 2024 ND 215
Docket No.: 20240024
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court order denying an amended application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

The affirmative defenses of res judicata and the statute of limitations are waived by the State when not raised in its answer to an application for postconviction relief.

To trigger the presumption of prejudice arising from improper jury contact, an applicant must first establish that the improper contact actually occurred.

Sanchez v. State 2024 ND 214
Docket No.: 20240173
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court judgment denying postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7).

RMM Properties v. City of Minot 2024 ND 213
Docket No.: 20240130
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Zoning
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

 View Opinion

Highlight: A court's review is very limited in an appeal from a local governing body's decision. The supreme court's function is to independently determine the propriety of the local governing body's decision, without any special deference to the district court's decision.

The decision of a local governing body must be affirmed unless the local body acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably, or if there is not substantial evidence supporting the decision.

Chapters 40-39 and 40-50.1, N.D.C.C., are intended to accomplish different tasks, and each provides its own method to protect public rights in streets, alleys, and public grounds. Section 40-39-05, N.D.C.C., applies when a petition seeks only to vacate "public grounds, streets, alleys, or parts thereof." Section 40-50.1-16, N.D.C.C., applies when all owners of lots in a plat seek to vacate the plat or part of the plat containing "public rights in the streets, alleys, easements, and public grounds."

Northstar Center v. Lukenbill Family Partnership, et al. 2024 ND 212
Docket No.: 20240034
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

 View Opinion

Highlight: Summary judgment should not constitute mini-trials of factual issues and is not appropriate when the court must draw inferences or make findings on disputed facts.

The elements of a prima facie case for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) breach of the contract; and (3) damages which flow from the breach. A breach of contract is the nonperformance of a contractual duty when it is due. While construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect presents a question of law, whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact.

An interference with contract claim contemplates a tortfeasor who either prevented a third party from entering into a contract or induced the third party to breach the contract with the plaintiff. To establish a prima facie case for intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must prove (1) a contract existed, (2) the contract was breached, (3) the defendant instigated the breach, and (4) the defendant instigated the breach without justification.

To prevail on an intentional interference with contract claim, the plaintiff must show the defendant acted intentionally, and the intent required goes beyond the traditional tort concept of intent. The plaintiff must show the defendant specifically intended to interfere with the plaintiff's contractual rights, or acted with knowledge that the interference would result. A party's intent generally presents a question of fact.

An indemnity is a contract by which one engages to save another from a legal consequence of the conduct of one of the parties or of some other person. Indemnification is a remedy which allows a party to recover reimbursement from another for the discharge of a liability which, as between them, should have been discharged by the other.

State v. Villazana 2024 ND 211
Docket No.: 20230307
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

 View Opinion

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b), district courts are to apply a three-step analysis to determine whether the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible: 1) the court must look to the purpose for which the evidence is introduced; 2) the evidence of the prior act or acts must be substantially reliable or clear and convincing; and 3) in criminal cases, there must be proof of the crime charged which permits the trier of fact to establish the defendant's guilt or innocence independently on the evidence presented, without consideration of the evidence of the prior acts.

Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. When reviewing a nonconstitutional trial error, the objective is to determine whether the error was so prejudicial that substantial injury occurred and a different decision would have resulted without the error.

Under N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(1)(B), an objection to the introduction of evidence must state the specific ground of the objection unless it was apparent from the context.

Only issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued are considered on appeal.

The standard of review for reconciling a jury verdict is whether the verdict is legally inconsistent. Strict standards of logical consistency need not be applied to jury verdicts in criminal cases. Reconciliation of a verdict includes an examination of both the law and the case in order to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable, and therefore consistent, or illogical and clearly contrary to the evidence.

Even if a jury fails to convict a defendant on a charge having a similar element to a charge on which the defendant is convicted, there is no legal inconsistency if there is substantial evidence to support the charge on which he is convicted. 1Jury instructions agreed to by a defendant become the law of the case.

State v. Ford 2024 ND 210
Docket No.: 20240074
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

 View Opinion

Highlight: When the record on direct appeal is inadequate to determine whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant may pursue the ineffectiveness claim at a postconviction proceeding where an adequate record can be made.

A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Bott v. Bott 2024 ND 209
Docket No.: 20240070
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court does not have continuing jurisdiction over a final property distribution.

Nevertheless, a final property division in a divorce may be modified in the same manner and on the same grounds as other judgments including a motion pursuant to N.D.R.Civ.P. 60.

Extraordinary circumstances are required for N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to be invoked.

If the judgment sought to be set aside was entered based on a stipulation of the parties, the party challenging the judgment has the additional burden of showing under the law of contracts there is justification for setting aside the stipulation.

On appeal, only considered is a determination of whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling that sufficient grounds for disturbing the finality of a judgment were not established, not whether the court was substantively correct in entering the judgment from which relief was sought.

Nelson, et al. v. Persons Unknown, et al. 2024 ND 208
Docket No.: 20240106
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

 View Opinion

Highlight: A person must have a reasonable claim to an interest or estate in real property to maintain a quiet title action.

A person without an interest or estate in real property cannot simultaneously voluntarily join a quiet title action and seek attorney's fees by claiming the action is frivolous.

An award of attorney's fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

Nelson, et al. v. Lindvig, et al. 2024 ND 208
Docket No.: 20230257
Filing Date: 11/21/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Oil, Gas and Minerals
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

 View Opinion

Highlight: A person must have a reasonable claim to an interest or estate in real property to maintain a quiet title action.

A person without an interest or estate in real property cannot simultaneously voluntarily join a quiet title action and seek attorney's fees by claiming the action is frivolous.

An award of attorney's fees is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.