William A. Neumann

In State v. Nelson, law enforcement officers entered Dawn Nelson's home to transport her to the hospital under an emergency treatment order and conducted a warrantless search for her inhaler during an asthma attack, discovering a foil bindle that was used to obtain a search warrant leading to her arrest for drug possession. Nelson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the initial search violated the Fourth Amendment, but the trial court denied the motion, leading to her conditional guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court failed to properly analyze whether the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied and misinterpreted the doctrine by focusing solely on the officers' lawful presence in the home. The court remanded for a determination of whether an actual emergency justified the search of the bedroom and whether probable cause supported the warrant, while upholding the presence of certain third parties during the warrant execution.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Stephen and Sheri Simpson filing a new lawsuit against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company and its attorneys, alleging fraud, concealment of evidence, obstruction of justice, and other tort claims based on the alleged failure to produce all surveillance videotapes during discovery in a prior 1996 product liability action where a jury found in favor of the defendants. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims, denied the motion to compel production of additional videotapes, and imposed Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous action. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of issues already decided in the prior case and post-trial motions, and that the new claims lacked legal basis or evidentiary support. The court also upheld the finding that the lawsuit was frivolous and the imposition of sanctions against the attorneys but reversed the portion holding the Simpsons jointly and severally liable with their counsel for monetary sanctions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(2)(a).

proceduretorts & liability

In this case, Mitchell Thomas appealed a district court judgment upholding a Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) order that denied him further disability and vocational rehabilitation benefits after he injured his back in 1995 while working as a truck driver. WSI had determined that Thomas was noncompliant with vocational rehabilitation requirements under N.D.C.C. § 65-05.1-04(6) because he knowingly manipulated the results of a functional capacity assessment (FCA) conducted by an occupational therapist, which was his second instance of noncompliance without good cause. An administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended affirming the denial after an evidentiary hearing, finding that the greater weight of the evidence supported the conclusion of manipulation based on inconsistencies in the assessment, and WSI adopted this recommendation. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agency's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and its conclusions aligned with the statute, which allows termination of benefits for such noncompliance, while adequately addressing contrary medical opinions.

labor & employment

The case involved Helen Roberts' appeal of the North Dakota Department of Human Services' denial of her Medicaid benefits application. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Roberts failed to establish her eligibility because she did not prove that payments had been made under a 1979 mortgage deed for land sold to her son, and a 2001 satisfaction of mortgage executed by the son under power of attorney was presumed invalid due to a fiduciary relationship. The core reasoning was that Roberts retained legal rights to the asset—either by setting aside the satisfaction or enforcing payment—making it countable for eligibility purposes, and she bore the burden of showing otherwise under agency rules and evidence standards.

healthcareproperty

The case involved divorced parents Lyle Frieze and Suzanne Roll, where Roll sought court permission to relocate the parties' three children from Wyoming to California with her new husband, and Frieze responded by requesting a change of custody to himself. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting the relocation and denying the custody modification. The court reasoned that Frieze failed to show persistent and willful interference with visitation under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6(5), so no grounds existed to modify custody within two years of the original order, and the trial court's analysis of relocation factors under Stout v. Stout supported allowing the move as consistent with the children's best interests.

family law

Michael Gamboa appealed the district court's denial of his motion for default summary judgment and dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief without a hearing. The case concerned Gamboa's 1996 guilty plea to delivery of marijuana, which he sought to withdraw years later on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and an alleged conflict of interest by his attorney. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that the statutory 30-day deadline for the state's response is discretionary rather than mandatory and that Gamboa had not shown prejudice from the delay caused by a clerk's office error. The court further determined that transcripts from the original proceedings demonstrated Gamboa's plea was knowing and voluntary, providing no basis for post-conviction relief.

criminal lawprocedure