Obert C. Teigen

The case involved a dispute between Ellendale Farmers Union Cooperative Association, which sold pig feed, and Newton E. Davis, a hog raiser who purchased the feed. The Cooperative sued Davis for $2,150.89 in unpaid goods sold between 1968 and 1970; Davis admitted the debt but counterclaimed for $2,490 in damages, alleging breach of warranty because the feed contained excessive salt that poisoned and killed 32 of his 90 young pigs while stunting the rest. The trial court ruled for the Cooperative on its claim and for Davis on the counterclaim in the amount of $1,310 as an offset, resulting in a net judgment of $840.89 for the Cooperative. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support both liability for breach of warranty and the amount of damages awarded, and that the trial court did not err in amending its findings of fact under Rule 52(b) without changing the judgment amount.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by a 14-year-old boy injured in a bicycle-automobile collision and his father from a district court judgment dismissing their personal injury claims against the car driver, Sandra Kling, and her employers. The plaintiffs alleged negligence by Kling in passing the boys, who were riding double on a modified bicycle, while the defendants raised defenses including contributory negligence and joint enterprise between the boys. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in submitting the joint enterprise issue to the jury and in related instructions on imputing negligence, while also addressing errors in evidentiary rulings and instructions on speed, contributory negligence, and last clear chance. The court clarified that a passenger's own contributory negligence, not the driver's, generally bars recovery unless a joint enterprise exists, and found no basis for certain other claimed errors.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Olheiser against Annco, Inc., alleging that negligence by Annco's crane operator proximately caused the death of Olheiser's son, an employee of general contractor Rolling Construction Company, while Annco performed subcontracted work on the same project. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, ruling that Annco was immune from suit under North Dakota's workers' compensation statutes (Sections 65-01-02(5)(c) and 65-01-08). On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the statutes do not provide such immunity to a subcontractor when both the general contractor and subcontractor maintain workers' compensation coverage on their own employees, as established in the recent precedent Boettner v. Twin City Construction Co.; the court found the statutes clear that Annco's employee was not deemed a co-employee of the decedent under these facts.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

The case involved a teacher suing a school board for breach of an alleged renewed teaching contract after the board failed to notify of non-renewal. The trial court awarded damages to the teacher, but the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed. The court first addressed jurisdiction, holding that the trial court had inherent power to vacate and reinstate the judgment, making the appeal timely. On the merits, the court reasoned that although the board's failure to give non-renewal notice constituted an offer to renew, the teacher did not provide the required written acceptance by May 1, relieving the board of any continuing contract obligation under state law.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between homeowners (the Dittmers) and a contractor (Nokleberg) over the construction of a dwelling on the plaintiffs' farm under an oral contract where the contractor provided labor and the owners supplied materials. The plaintiffs sued for damages due to alleged defects in workmanship, claiming failure to substantially perform, while the defendant counterclaimed for the unpaid contract balance plus extras via a mechanic's lien. The trial court found the contractor had not substantially performed, awarded the plaintiffs damages for defects attributable to him, and denied the counterclaim. On appeal, the court held that the contractor had substantially performed despite some defects for which he bore responsibility, allowing recovery on the counterclaim offset by the plaintiffs' damages, resulting in a net judgment for the contractor.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns eligibility for adjusted compensation payments under North Dakota's Vietnam Conflict Veterans’ Adjusted Compensation Act, specifically the validity of a regulation by the adjutant general and the interpretation of the statutory definition of 'resident' for veterans who had extended periods of continuous active duty. The plaintiffs, representing a class of veterans, sought payment of the bonus, challenging restrictions that excluded those on continuous active duty for fifteen or more years immediately before August 5, 1964, without establishing a North Dakota abode. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statute's language is clear and unambiguous, that the adjutant general's regulation requiring separation from such duty is consistent with the law, and that the fifteen-year limitation applies broadly rather than being limited by ejusdem generis to specific residency categories. The decision relies on legislative intent, prior similar acts for World War II and Korean conflict veterans, and the presumption that the legislature adopted the established administrative construction.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved a buyer and his insurer suing Ford Motor Company after a new Lincoln Continental was destroyed by fire, allegedly due to a defect, seeking damages under theories of express or implied warranty breach, negligence, or strict liability. The trial court granted summary judgment to Ford, dismissing the claims based on the manufacturer's basic warranty and limitation of liability, which excluded coverage for fire loss (except personal injury) and which the court found was not unconscionable or against public policy. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that unconscionability under the Uniform Commercial Code is a factual question that could not be resolved on the existing summary judgment record without further proceedings to assess the circumstances of the transaction and the disclaimer. The court noted that the buyer had received the warranty document but emphasized the need for evidence on whether the limitation was enforceable given the lack of negotiation and the commercial nature of the loss.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by an electric service customer and a public utility from a district court judgment affirming a Public Service Commission order that denied the utility a certificate of public convenience and necessity to extend service to a rural hog barn. The Commission had found that an electric cooperative was the dominant supplier in the area, already served a nearby farmstead, and could provide service without wasteful duplication, and it ordered the utility to disconnect its temporary lines once the cooperative was ready. The district court and supreme court affirmed, holding that state law requires a regulated public utility to demonstrate public convenience and necessity before extending rural service and that customer preference does not override the Commission's determination on that issue. The courts concluded the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or unreasonable.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over payment for roof repair work performed by plaintiff Skinner on defendant Clausen's building under an oral agreement where no price had been set in advance. Skinner completed the repairs, which made the roof watertight and lasted without leaks for years, and billed approximately $3,445; when Clausen did not pay, Skinner sued for the reasonable value of materials and services. The trial court found that the fair and reasonable value was $3,463.51 and entered judgment for Skinner. On appeal, Clausen challenged the factual findings as unsupported by the evidence regarding the scope of work and its value, but the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings were not clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a) given the conflicting testimony and substantial supporting evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a forcible entry and detainer action over possession of 320 acres of North Dakota farmland. The plaintiff claimed ownership and the right to possession under a contract for deed from the county, which had acquired the land through tax deed proceedings; the defendant, the former owner, denied the plaintiff's title, counterclaimed for quiet title, and later challenged the county's sale on procedural grounds. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff and county held fee simple title and ordered the defendant to vacate, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment and denial of a new trial. The court reasoned that the county's tax title was valid and unchallenged, the sale substantially complied with statutory notice and hearing requirements under the governing code sections, the former owner lacked standing or failed to satisfy deposit requirements to contest the sale, and official actions were presumed regular in the absence of contrary evidence.

propertyproceduretaxes

This case involved Production Credit Association of Minot (PCA) suing to foreclose on security agreements and a real estate mortgage after Herbert Geving defaulted on multiple promissory notes totaling over $272,000, which financed his purchase of land and cattle from the Zahnows and other farming expenses. Geving admitted the debts but raised a counterclaim alleging estoppel, negligence in loan preparation, and economic duress from PCA's pressure to sign a settlement agreement, while also demanding a jury trial. The trial court struck the jury demand, dismissed the counterclaim, and entered judgment for foreclosure in favor of PCA and other creditors. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that a Loan Settlement Agreement fairly compromised and barred Geving's counterclaims, and that PCA's refusal to extend further credit did not constitute wrongful economic coercion since it was exercising its legal rights under the loan documents.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the City of Wahpeton suing contractor Drake-Henne, Inc., and its surety for defective workmanship in a municipal street improvement project, where trenches were not compacted to the contractually required 95% of Proctor density, leading to settling and damage to curb, gutter, pavement, and other improvements. The court held that the contractor was liable for the full cost of repairing all resulting defects proved at trial, including those discovered after the one-year warranty period, because timely written notice of the single causal defect activated the warranty clause obligating the contractor to remedy all consequential damages or pay the owner's costs. It further ruled that the statutory performance bond could not be treated as liquidated damages unless there was a complete failure of performance, and remanded for further calculation of certain repair costs plus interest. The core reasoning centered on identifying one underlying defect with timely notice, distinguishing it from separate deficiencies, and harmonizing warranty provisions with state statutes on bonds and penalties.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over a sales tax payment of $12,040.36 made to IBM during the purchase of leased computer equipment by Gate City from IMT, where the parties arranged the transaction to allow Gate City to benefit from IMT's purchase credits while complying with IBM's non-transferable credit policy. Gate City paid IBM directly for both the equipment and the tax, IMT obtained a resale exemption certificate to claim a refund from IBM, and the two buyers had a side agreement to split any refund. The trial court found that Gate City effectively purchased the equipment directly from IBM and held that IBM owed Gate City a portion of the tax under a quasi-contract based on unjust enrichment and fiduciary duty; it entered judgment for Gate City for $7,673.99. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the circumstances created an obligation for IBM to make restitution of the tax amount due under the parties' arrangement and that any procedural errors were harmless.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved challenges to penitentiary sentences imposed for delivery and sale of controlled substances under North Dakota's Uniform Controlled Substances Act, with defendants Farrell, Loeb, and Mahrer arguing that the offenses were misdemeanors punishable only by county jail time. The North Dakota Supreme Court, answering certified questions from the trial court, held that district courts have jurisdiction to impose penitentiary sentences for violations under subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 3 of Section 19-03.1-23. The court reasoned that the statutes' authorization of imprisonment terms up to ten or five years, without limiting the place of confinement, permits penitentiary sentences, consistent with the severity indicated by those penalties and comparable provisions elsewhere in the Act that classify similar offenses as felonies. The court declined to answer the fourth certified question as it was not essential to the cases.

criminal law

This case involves a motion by appellee KEM Electric Cooperative to dismiss appellant Lawrence Naaden's appeal for failing to timely transmit the record or pay the docket fee under the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal was filed June 8, 1973, but the record was not transmitted and the fee not paid within the required 40 days, and no timely extension was obtained from the proper court. The court found that the appellant had not complied with Rules 11, 12, and related provisions, which place responsibility on the appellant to ensure timely transmission. However, exercising discretion under Rule 3(a), the court denied the motion to dismiss because the new appellate rules had only recently taken effect, the appeal was ready for argument, no prejudice was shown, and a substantial question was presented, conditioned on payment of $250 in costs to the appellee.

procedure

This case involved a divorce action between Sylvia and Delbert Johnson, married since 1953 with no children together, where both initially sought divorce but the trial court granted it to Sylvia on grounds of extreme cruelty. The appeal challenged the trial court's division of their limited marital property (including a jointly owned home with mortgage, vehicles, and furnishings), award of $70 monthly alimony to Sylvia, and attorney's fees, given the parties' incomes, debts, health issues, and Sylvia's life estate in the home with shared mortgage obligations. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and post-judgment order, holding that the trial court had authority under N.D.C.C. § 14-05-24 to make an equitable distribution and that Delbert failed to show an abuse of discretion in light of the parties' circumstances, with the court retaining modification power over alimony. A concurring opinion noted debate over applying an abuse-of-discretion versus clearly erroneous standard of review to property divisions.

family lawproperty

The case involved the conviction of an 18-year-old defendant for second-degree rape under North Dakota law, based on an incident at a remote outdoor party where the 16-year-old complainant was held down by multiple people and two unidentified individuals had sexual contact with her. The defendant appealed, claiming insufficient evidence to prove penetration or to identify him as a perpetrator. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that medical testimony about bruising and tearing of the hymen established the required element of slight sexual penetration under the statute, and that multiple eyewitness accounts of the defendant's position, movements, and clothing provided substantial evidence of his identity as one of the perpetrators.

criminal law

In Goff v. Goff, the case concerned a post-divorce motion to modify custody of a minor child, Sherie, originally awarded to the father under the 1970 divorce decree while the mother retained custody of a younger sibling. The trial court granted the mother's request to transfer custody to her, citing changes in circumstances including the father's health issues involving blackout spells, his temporary unsuitable living arrangements in a hotel room while planning remarriage, and the mother's stable remarriage and home in North Dakota. The father appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its assessment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the modification order, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a) and that it had not abused its broad discretion in child custody matters based on the evidence of changed conditions.

family law

This case involves a motion to dismiss an appeal by two defendants, William Clairmont, Inc. and National Surety Corporation, from portions of a February 1972 judgment that awarded ownership of equipment and monetary damages to plaintiffs L. H. Wagener, Inc. and Security Trust and Savings Bank based on claims against multiple defendants arising from contractual relationships and defaults. The North Dakota Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The core reasoning was that the appellants failed to meet multiple statutory deadlines and requirements for perfecting and prosecuting the appeal, such as serving specifications of error with the notice of appeal, timely ordering a transcript, obtaining extensions, settling the statement of the case promptly, filing briefs, and transmitting the record, with more than fifteen months of unexplained delay after the notice of appeal.

procedure

In Neuberger v. Dally, the administrator of Harold Dally's estate sued to cancel a joint tenancy deed that Dally executed before his death, conveying a lot to himself and his wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship, on the ground that the transfer was fraudulent to defraud creditors. The trial court found that the deed was properly executed and delivered while Dally was hospitalized and that the plaintiff had not proved fraudulent intent. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the evidence supported the trial court's findings on execution, delivery, and lack of fraud, that any homestead issues did not invalidate the deed, and that the trial court's factual determinations were not clearly erroneous under Rule 52(a).

property