Harvey B. Knudson

The case involved a dispute between John Deere Company and its former dealer Nygard Equipment over termination of a franchise agreement, defaults on payments under a security agreement, and Deere's seizure and sale of equipment. Deere sought immediate possession of collateral valued at over $90,000 after alleging default, while Nygard counterclaimed for conversion, interference with business, and damages, asserting offsets, improper levy on excess property, and rights under North Dakota's farm machinery dealer statute. The court reviewed the dealership and security agreements, the Uniform Commercial Code remedies, a stipulation on indebtedness and credits, and the state statute requiring manufacturers to repurchase inventory at specified percentages upon franchise cancellation, determining the applicability of these provisions to the seizure and sale conducted by Deere.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved wrongful death claims against American Motors Corporation (AMC) by the families of two women who died when their Rambler station wagon was rear-ended by another vehicle, causing the gas tank to rupture and the car to burst into flames. The plaintiffs alleged that AMC's negligent design of the vehicle caused the deaths. The trial court granted summary judgment to AMC on the grounds that a manufacturer has no duty to make an automobile accident-proof and that participation in collisions is not part of a vehicle's intended purpose. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that differing reasonable inferences could be drawn from the undisputed facts regarding whether the design created an unreasonable risk of harm, creating a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, and it adopted strict products liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an appeal by the State Highway Commissioner from a district court order that reversed the revocation of James Lund's driver's license. Lund was arrested for driving under the influence after a car accident, initially agreed to but then refused a chemical blood test at the hospital, later changed his mind after phone calls and sought to take the test about an hour later while still in custody, but the officer declined; Lund obtained his own tests later that evening. The Commissioner had revoked the license for six months based on the refusal under the implied consent law, and the district court had found no refusal occurred because Lund retracted it within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed, holding that an initial refusal cannot be cured by subsequent consent within a reasonable time, as the statute contemplates prompt testing without unreasonable delay to ensure reliability and avoid administrative burdens on law enforcement.

criminal law

The case concerned the Commissioner of Insurance's revocation of Richard E. Evanson's resident insurance agent licenses after a complaint alleging violations of state insurance law, where Evanson requested but did not attend the hearing and the Commissioner issued the revocation based only on the complaint and notices without additional evidence or substantive findings. The district court voided the revocation order and remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits. The appellate court affirmed that decision, holding that the Commissioner's findings of fact were inadequate because they recited only procedural facts about service and nonappearance rather than establishing that Evanson had committed any of the wrongful acts listed in N.D.C.C. § 26-17-01.12 that would justify revocation, and that the statute and Administrative Agencies Practice Act both require explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law supported by evidence.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned an appeal from a conviction for driving under the influence after the defendant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a parked but running vehicle on a public highway, with a breathalyzer test showing 0.22% blood alcohol and a blood test showing 0.23%. The defendant argued insufficient evidence of driving and improper admission of breathalyzer evidence due to lack of foundation regarding approval by the state toxicologist. The court decided that circumstantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant had operated the vehicle and that while the breathalyzer testimony and checklist lacked proper foundation, their admission was harmless error given the independent blood test results, leading to affirmation of the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1971 rear-end automobile collision in which plaintiff King suffered a herniated disc requiring surgery, leading to ongoing leg numbness and activity limitations. King sued the Montzes in 1973; after their insurer failed to file a timely answer, a default judgment for over $27,000 was entered. The trial court denied the Montzes' motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the insurer's misplacement of the summons constituted excusable neglect not imputable to the defendants and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the default where a meritorious defense was presented and no substantial prejudice resulted to the plaintiff.

proceduretorts & liability