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

The case involved a lawsuit by one enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation against another for personal injuries from a car accident on a state highway within the reservation. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state courts lack jurisdiction over civil actions between Indians arising on reservations unless the tribe has consented to such jurisdiction under federal law, including Public Law 280 and 90-284, and Chapter 27-19 of the North Dakota Century Code. The court reasoned that "Indian country" includes rights-of-way on reservations, and absent tribal acceptance, federal law preempts state jurisdiction, distinguishing and overruling prior precedent.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a divorced father seeking to reduce his child support obligations from $100 to $50 per child per month, citing changed circumstances such as his remarriage, increased financial obligations, and the mother's decision to stop working after remarrying. The trial court granted a partial reduction to $75 per child, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the decision. The court held that the father failed to meet his burden of proving a material change in circumstances beyond his control, as the changes were primarily due to voluntary actions like remarriage and incurring new debts. The court emphasized that support orders can only be modified upon a proper showing of changed conditions not attributable to the petitioner's voluntary conduct.

family law

This case involved a dispute over title to land originally homesteaded by Martin J. Handy, who died in 1895 without probate; plaintiffs (his son and daughter-in-law) claimed sole ownership through decades of possession and operation without sharing proceeds with other heirs, seeking to quiet title via adverse possession. The court ruled for the defendants, who asserted undivided interests as cotenants by inheritance, holding that the plaintiffs' possession did not establish adverse title. The core reasoning was that a cotenant in possession is presumed to hold for the benefit of all cotenants, mere long-term use and non-sharing of rents does not constitute ouster, and the burden to prove ouster by clear and convincing evidence for the statutory period was not met.

property

Signal Oil and Gas Company challenged the assessment of machinery and equipment at its gas-separation plant as taxable real property under North Dakota law, first protesting the valuation of tanks and loading facilities before the local and county boards and later expanding the appeal in district court to seek abatement of all such property on statutory and constitutional grounds. The district court ruled in Signal's favor, finding the relevant tax statute unconstitutional under the state constitution and the federal Equal Protection Clause. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the statutory classification distinguishing property used in oil and gas refining from that used for other fuels like lignite coal was reasonable and did not violate equal protection or due process requirements.

taxesproperty

This case involves an appeal from a default judgment entered against the defendants after no trial occurred in the district court. The North Dakota Supreme Court had previously ruled that the appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate the default judgment was untimely and thus not reviewable, leaving only the appeal from the judgment itself. No specifications of error were served with the notice of appeal, and the appellants' brief raised no issues appearing on the face of the judgment roll, instead focusing solely on the already-final order denying the motion to vacate. The court therefore held that nothing was properly presented for review and affirmed the default judgment.

procedure

This case involved a farm worker suing his employers for damages after he fell while climbing out of a grain truck he had been sweeping, claiming negligence due to the lack of a ladder. The trial court submitted the case to the jury, which found for the plaintiff, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, ordering dismissal of the complaint. The court reasoned that the plaintiff, a mature and experienced worker, was fully aware of the risks involved in his method of exiting the truck and thus assumed the risk as a matter of law, precluding recovery even if the employers were negligent. Questions of negligence and assumption of risk were typically for the jury, but here the evidence showed assumption of risk without contradiction.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Miller, the defendant was charged with burglary of a concrete company's office after witnesses observed two people at the door shortly before the break-in, fingerprints matching the defendant's were found on recently cleaned broken glass from the door, and alcohol was stolen. The trial court convicted the defendant without a jury based on this circumstantial evidence, including the timing of the fingerprints, a description of long hair matching the defendant, and motive from a quarrel over spending a welfare check on liquor. The defendant appealed, contending the evidence only established prior presence at the scene and was insufficient to prove guilt. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the evidence reasonably supported the trial court's finding and that an appellate court will not substitute its judgment where the circumstances tend to prove guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In Vogel v. Roberts, the plaintiffs obtained a default judgment after the defendants' attorneys filed only a notice of appearance that served as a general denial and then failed to respond to a motion for judgment; the defendants later moved to vacate the judgment on grounds of excusable neglect, which the trial court denied. The defendants appealed from the oral denial before it was reduced to a written order and then delayed for over a year in filing their appellate brief, prompting the plaintiffs to move to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. The North Dakota Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss, applied a remedial statute and precedents favoring hearings on the merits when an appeal is taken in good faith and no prejudice is shown, affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate, and limited any further review of the underlying judgment to errors apparent on the face of the judgment roll.

procedure

This case involved a divorce action filed by the plaintiff on grounds of extreme cruelty and incompatibility, with the defendant counterclaiming on similar grounds. The trial court granted divorces to both parties on irreconcilable differences and divided the marital property by awarding the plaintiff the Minot residence, household items, cash payments, and a note balance, while giving the defendant his farmlands. On appeal, the plaintiff challenged the property division and attorney fee award as insufficient. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's findings, holding that they were not clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a) and that the attorney fee award did not constitute an abuse of discretion, though it remanded for possible additional fees on appeal.

family lawproperty

This case involved a wrongful death and personal injury suit brought by a minor plaintiff against Soo Line Railway after her parents and sister were killed and she was injured in a car accident. The accident occurred when probationary brakeman Evan Dockter, called by the railroad to report for work in Harvey despite snowy and hazardous driving conditions between Minot and Harvey, drove recklessly, attempted to pass another vehicle, and collided with the plaintiff's car. The jury found for the plaintiff on a theory that the railroad was negligent in ordering Dockter to travel under those conditions, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and ordered dismissal. The court held that Dockter's own negligence was an intervening cause and that the railroad's order was not the proximate cause of the collision, as the harm was not a probable or foreseeable result of the call to report for work.

torts & liability

This case involved a church suing the manufacturer of a baptistry unit, along with contractors and others, for damages from a fire that originated in the baptistry area of a newly constructed building. The building had been in use for months but not formally accepted under the contract when the fire occurred in January 1967, allegedly due to a malfunction in the unit's heating controls. The plaintiff sought to amend its complaint post-trial to add breach of contract claims under Rule 15(b), but the trial court denied the motions and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to support those claims or to connect any defects to the fire. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no breach of contract issues were tried by consent and that the evidence did not establish liability on the pleaded theories of negligence or products liability. The court also dismissed related cross-claims among the defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Delmar D. Klein in Logan County district court for first-degree rape under North Dakota law, based on an information charging him with sexual intercourse with a female under age 18 who was not his wife while he was over age 24. Klein appealed from the judgment and denial of his motion for new trial, raising claims of insufficient evidence due to lack of proof of penetration and prejudicial error from the trial court's ex parte communication with the jury during deliberations. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the conviction, holding that the complaining witness's testimony on penetration was sufficient without corroboration and that the evidence overall supported the jury's verdict, with no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying a new trial. On petition for rehearing, the court also found no error in sentencing the defendant immediately after verdict, as the visiting judge had indicated he did not intend to remain in session for the statutory two-day period. The topics addressed include criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between North American Pump Corp., a sales corporation, and Clay Equipment Corp., a manufacturer, over an alleged oral contract granting the plaintiff exclusive dealership rights to sell the defendant's farm equipment in northern North Dakota and part of Minnesota. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the agreement by terminating it and appointing another dealer after the plaintiff's salesman left to join that competitor; the defendant denied any exclusive contract existed due to lack of mutuality and consideration. A jury awarded the plaintiff $3,000 in damages, and the trial court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment after finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the existence of a valid contract, no error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or refusal to submit special interrogatories, and modifying the award only to eliminate pre-verdict interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a family-owned construction company and a retired couple over payment for home remodeling and garage construction work, including agreed extras, as well as the validity of a mechanic's lien on the defendants' property. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, accepting its bid amounts of $2,900 for remodeling and $1,490 for the garage (with a $150 reduction for size discrepancy), awarding recovery for extras after reductions, and granting a lien, resulting in a judgment of $3,659.49 after crediting a $2,000 payment. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's findings on the conflicting oral bid evidence and extras, noting that such findings have the same weight as a jury verdict and are conclusive where supported by substantial evidence. The judgment was modified downward to $2,440 because the lien filing improperly mingled charges for materials used on multiple projects in violation of statute, requiring reduction of the lien amount, though the lien remained valid for the adjusted balance.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory