Mary Muehlen Maring

Timothy Lamb, after failing the February 2008 North Dakota bar exam and being denied admission, requested extensive information on the exam's grading, scoring, and procedures from the State Board of Law Examiners, first through discovery in a hearing and then via open records requests. When the Board provided limited materials and denied further disclosure, Lamb sought a writ of mandamus from the district court to compel production, arguing that open records laws and the state constitution overrode any confidentiality rules. The district court denied the writ, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that bar admissions are a judicial function governed by the Admission to Practice Rules, which render the requested records confidential and exempt from public disclosure under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.8. The court concluded Lamb lacked a clear legal right to the information, as the rules control over general open records statutes and no exception applied.

procedure

This case concerns parents appealing a juvenile court order extending their child's placement in the custody of Grand Forks County Social Services for twelve months based on a finding of continued deprivation. The mother did not file an appellate brief, resulting in dismissal of her appeal under procedural rules, while the father's appeal proceeded. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the juvenile court's findings of ongoing deprivation—supported by the father's incomplete compliance with required evaluations, treatment programs, and contact restrictions—were not clearly erroneous, that reasonable reunification efforts had been made by social services, and that the court did not err in denying related motions for visitation or return of the child.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Lehman, Troy Lehman was charged with kidnapping, attempted theft by deception, and terrorizing after he apprehended Daniel Flyinghawk, a person who had skipped bail, and restrained him for several hours while negotiating with a bail bond company. A jury convicted Lehman of kidnapping and terrorizing but acquitted him of attempted theft. Lehman appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction, that the jury should have been instructed on a private person's arrest authority, and that the verdicts were inconsistent. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of abduction and restraint with intent to hold for ransom or reward was sufficient, that the jury instructions adequately stated the law, and that the verdicts were logically consistent because kidnapping requires only intent while attempted theft requires proof of a substantial step toward deprivation of property.

criminal law

The case involved M.W., a juvenile accused in a petition alleging five counts of gross sexual imposition, and a juvenile court's attempt to transfer jurisdiction over two of those counts to district court following a prior remand from the North Dakota Supreme Court. On remand, the juvenile court held a hearing and issued a transfer order under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(1)(c) after M.W. had already turned 20 years old. The Supreme Court concluded that the juvenile court's jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20 ended when M.W. attained age 20, making any subsequent order void, and therefore vacated the transfer order without addressing other issues raised on appeal.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Corey Allen Mohl's appeal from a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The court reasoned that, under the totality of the circumstances including the late hour and the officer's experience, the vehicle's repeated touching of the fog line sixteen times and center line eight times over three miles amounted to erratic driving within its lane that justified an investigative stop, distinguishing it from prior cases with less pronounced movement.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Wanner, the defendant was charged with criminal mischief for willfully damaging three vehicles by fire in the early morning hours, amid a custody dispute with his ex-partner. The jury convicted him based on circumstantial evidence including witness testimonies about prior threats, purchases of gas cans and spray paint matching items at the scene, and physical evidence linking him to the crime. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and that any violation of the witness sequestration order did not prejudice the defendant because the officer's testimony was not influenced by prior statements heard in court.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Rhonda Hanneman's petition for a domestic violence protection order against Arden Nygaard, the father of her two children, based on allegations of repeated physical abuse, threats, property damage, and harassing contacts including incidents on June 15, 2009, and afterward. A prior similar petition by Hanneman had been dismissed after she failed to appear at a hearing. Nygaard moved to dismiss the second petition on res judicata grounds, but the district court denied the motion and issued a two-year protection order after an evidentiary hearing, finding that Nygaard had assaulted Hanneman and posed a credible threat. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while the first dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits for overlapping allegations, the second petition included new post-filing incidents of abusive conduct that were not barred, and the evidence was sufficient to support the order.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Scott Gerhardt appealing his conviction for actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence after a jury trial in district court. Gerhardt challenged the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence, arguing that a police officer violated his constitutional rights by unlawfully stopping and seizing him during an encounter in a parked pickup. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling and the conviction, concluding that the officer's initial approach to check on the individual constituted a valid community caretaking encounter. The court further held that the officer's observations during that encounter, including the vehicle's location late at night, Gerhardt's confused appearance, and signs of impairment, provided reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment and the North Dakota Constitution.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Bauer, Morris Bauer was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-02(2) and driving under the influence after an altercation in which he allegedly cut John Zimbro with a knife during a confrontation outside a bar. Bauer appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the knife was a dangerous weapon possessed with intent to inflict serious bodily injury and that the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instructions on the essential elements and the jury's duty. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that competent evidence supported the jury's verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to it and that the instructions given as a whole adequately informed the jury of the prosecution's burden to prove all elements, including the absence of self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that while Bauer's preferred phrasing and order might have been preferable, the trial court is not required to adopt a party's exact requested language.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Margaret Dutton's challenge to a Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) order that awarded her permanent partial impairment benefits for back, wrist, and depression injuries from work accidents but denied additional benefits for chronic pain. After an administrative rule barring separate pain ratings was invalidated, WSI relied on a letter from Dr. Cooper—who had performed the initial evaluations before being hired as WSI's Medical Director—to conclude no extra impairment rating for pain was needed under the AMA Guides. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court's affirmance of WSI's order and remanded for entry of a judgment reversing it, reasoning that the doctor's post-evaluation employment by WSI rendered his clarifying opinion on pain assessment unreliable or non-independent in violation of statutory requirements for impartial evaluations. The court also addressed evidentiary rulings on related deposition testimony.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a divorce action between Mark and Cheryl Paulson, who married in 1994 and separated in 2006, involving disputes over the division of marital property and Cheryl's request for spousal support. The trial court divided the marital assets under the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, awarding certain items like a table and china cabinet to Mark while denying permanent or rehabilitative spousal support based on the parties' ages, earning capacities, health, and other factors. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the property division, finding the trial court's allocations were supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous. However, it reversed the denial of spousal support, holding that the trial court clearly erred in its application of the guidelines to the support determination, and remanded for further proceedings. A dissent argued that the trial court's supported findings on support should have been upheld under the clearly erroneous standard.

family lawproperty

The case involved the State appealing a trial court's dismissal of a criminal information charging John Oliver Smith with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Smith had purchased ephedrine, which police linked to evidence of methamphetamine production found in a vehicle he was riding in, and he admitted knowing it would be used to cook meth. After a preliminary hearing where the court found probable cause and bound the case over, it later granted Smith's motion to dismiss, citing concerns over evidentiary discrepancies and insufficient proof of guilt. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that a pretrial motion to dismiss tests only the facial sufficiency of the information and cannot be used to weigh evidence or reassess probable cause, which had already been established. The matter was remanded for reinstatement of the charge and further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ebertz, the defendant pled guilty to a class A misdemeanor charge of possession of drug paraphernalia and received a deferred imposition of sentence with one year of unsupervised probation, under an order stating that the plea would be withdrawn, the case dismissed, and the file sealed 61 days after probation ended if conditions were met. The State moved to revoke probation after the probation period expired, citing violations during probation, but later conceded the motion was untimely under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(7); the district court dismissed the revocation motion yet ruled that the conviction would stand and the file would not be sealed because conditions had not been fulfilled. Ebertz appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to alter the deferred sentence outcome after the deadline. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.1 mandates automatic dismissal and sealing 61 days after probation expires unless the court orders otherwise beforehand, and that the district court had no jurisdiction to intervene after that point. The case was remanded for entry of an order dismissing the case and sealing the file, harmonizing the statute with the rule's specific timing requirements for misdemeanors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a juvenile, A.R., who was adjudicated delinquent by a North Dakota juvenile court for committing disorderly conduct after he yelled "stupid nigger" at an African-American girl during an incident in which a group circled her and yelled at her. A.R. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that his speech was protected by the First Amendment and that the petition failed to allege the elements of the offense under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01. The juvenile court denied the motion, found sufficient evidence based on the stipulated facts from the petition, police report, and victim's statement, and adjudicated him delinquent. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the speech constituted unprotected "fighting words" because it was accompanied by threatening behavior that went beyond mere utterance of the epithet, the petition provided adequate notice, and the evidence supported the finding of disorderly conduct involving threatening and harassing conduct.

criminal lawfree speech

In Westby v. Schmidt, a homeowner sued a contractor and his newly formed corporation for breach of contract after construction of a house exceeded the estimated price, remained incomplete, and included substandard work, seeking damages for payments made and costs to finish and repair the project. A jury awarded the homeowner $239,595.14, and the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the corporation. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony from the replacement contractor, that sufficient evidence supported the verdict and damages, and that the corporation was bound by the contract because it knowingly accepted its benefits through billing and payments despite being formed before the agreement was signed. The court also declined to address an unpreserved argument about substituting the corporation as the sole party.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a quiet title action in which the Van Beeks sued the Umbers over the location of a section line between their adjoining properties in Emmons County, North Dakota, alleging obstruction of a public access way and wrongful claims to their land; both sides presented conflicting surveyor testimony at trial. The trial court credited the Van Beeks' surveyor, ruled for them, and awarded costs including attorney's fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the attorney's fees award because the trial court made no findings that the Umbers' pleadings were untrue, lacked reasonable cause, and were not in good faith, as required to impose sanctions under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-31.

propertyprocedure

In Hagerott v. Morton County Board of Commissioners, Donald and Mark Hagerott challenged the Morton County Commission's decision to grant Fred Berger a conditional use permit to operate an 8,000-animal-unit feedlot on agricultural land, claiming they had standing due to a nearby building permit for a residence, that the permit violated an odor setback ordinance, and that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that Donald Hagerott had standing but that Mark did not, and it affirmed the Commission's decision after applying a deferential standard of review. The Court reasoned that the record showed the Commission considered relevant factors such as environmental requirements, road improvements, and public comments, and its determination that no existing residence was within the setback was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The Court declined to address the takings claim because the proceeding was an appeal from a county commission decision rather than an inverse condemnation action.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironmentprocedure

In State v. Byzewski, the defendant appealed from conditional guilty pleas to violating a domestic violence protection order and driving while under suspension, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss (on grounds that the order impermissibly infringed his right to intrastate travel) and motion to suppress (on grounds of an illegal seizure). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed both judgments. The court reasoned that while the constitutional right to intrastate travel exists, it is not absolute and may be restricted by a valid protection order issued to prevent harm to another person, and that campus security's report of the defendant's presence on the prohibited campus provided officers with reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop. The protection order was upheld as constitutional under the domestic violence statute, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily law

In Nelson v. Johnson, landlord Kathy Nelson brought an eviction action against tenant Carol Johnson under North Dakota law after Johnson failed to pay February 2009 rent on time, seeking possession of the townhouse along with unpaid rent, late fees, attorney fees, and costs. Johnson defended by claiming improper service of the required three-day eviction notice, waiver and estoppel based on alleged verbal agreements allowing late payment, and a counterclaim for retaliatory eviction tied to her complaints about the premises. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment of eviction and monetary award, holding that the notice was properly served by posting after an attempt at personal delivery and that Johnson failed to establish her defenses or counterclaim. The court reasoned that statutory requirements for notice were satisfied and that the tenant's evidence did not support findings of waiver, estoppel, or retaliation.

propertyprocedure

The case involved consolidated appeals by Antonio Stridiron and Bradley Davis from their convictions following a July 2007 incident in which Joshua Velasquez was killed after an altercation at a party; Stridiron was found guilty of class AA felony murder and Davis of class C felony aggravated assault. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed both convictions, holding that the district court did not err in joining the cases for trial, denying a change of venue, rejecting a Batson challenge to the peremptory strike of the sole African-American juror, excluding certain hearsay testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 804(b)(3), or in finding the evidence sufficient to support Davis's conviction. The court reasoned that joinder was proper under the rules because the defendants participated in the same series of acts, that limiting instructions addressed any prejudice, and that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supported the jury's findings on the assault charge.

criminal law