Alvin C. Strutz

The case was a wrongful death action brought by the surviving wife of a master plumber who died after losing consciousness in a school construction sump, under North Dakota's Death by Wrongful Act statute. The plaintiff alleged that a propane gas leak from defendant Otter Tail Power Company's service line had caused the death by allowing gas to reach the sump. The trial court granted Otter Tail's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the claim at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that causation could not be established without expert testimony on the permeability of the soil and the ability of propane gas to travel approximately fifty to sixty feet from the leak site through the ground and building foundation into the sump, as any conclusion otherwise would rest on speculation.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a survival action brought by the personal representative of a man killed in an accident, seeking damages for his conscious pain and suffering and for punitive damages against the defendants, including Otter Tail Power Company. The plaintiff had previously pursued a wrongful-death claim on behalf of herself and the heirs but failed to include these claims before her discharge as administratrix, and she did not file the present suit until nearly four years after the death. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the claims were time-barred, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under N.D.C.C. § 28-01-26 the personal representative had only one year from death to bring a surviving cause of action, and that even if that statute did not apply, N.D.C.C. § 28-01-18(4) imposed a two-year limitation running from the date of death.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Loucks, the defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing marijuana after police executed a no-knock search warrant at the apartment he shared with Bruce Hoar and found baggies of the substance in plain view in the living room where the defendant was present. The defendant argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to prove knowing possession, that the no-knock warrant was invalidly issued by a county judge, and that the identity of the confidential informant should have been disclosed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient because the defendant was the original lessee, had shared the apartment for months, was seated near the visible marijuana, and the warrant was properly supported by an affidavit from a reliable informant whose prior tips had led to arrests. The court further ruled that disclosure of the informant was unnecessary because the informant's reliability was established without it and the information about marijuana in the apartment four days earlier did not require further identification of others present.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved four actions by Indians living and working on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation challenging North Dakota's attempts to impose state income tax on reservation-earned wages, sales tax on reservation purchases, and business privilege tax on reservation businesses. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings for the plaintiffs, holding that the state lacked authority to collect these taxes. The core reasoning was that federal law, including treaties and statutes regulating commerce with Indian tribes, preempts state taxation of Indians and Indian traders on reservations absent an agreement submitting to state jurisdiction, as established by U.S. Supreme Court precedents in McClanahan v. Arizona and Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona.

federal powertaxesbusiness & regulatory

The defendant was convicted of possessing a controlled substance after officers discovered thirty pounds of marijuana hidden in the tires of his vehicle during a warrantless search at a police station. On appeal, the court reviewed the facts of the defendant's suspicious behavior at a tire shop, his arrest, and the subsequent vehicle search, which was conducted without a warrant or continuous surveillance from the border. The court held that the search could not be justified as a border search because the vehicle had not been under continuous observation since crossing the border and its contents could have been altered, nor was there any exigent circumstance since the defendant was already in custody. As a result, the evidence should have been suppressed, and the conviction was reversed.

criminal lawprocedure

In Cox v. Hjelle, the petitioner challenged the North Dakota Highway Commissioner's suspension of his driver's license for sixty days after four convictions for speeding more than ten miles per hour over the limit within two years. The district court canceled the suspension, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the Commissioner's order. The court reasoned that the relevant statute authorized the suspension based on the convictions, that the petitioner had opportunities for hearings in each case but forfeited bail instead, and that this process did not violate due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights