Gerald W. VandeWalle

In State v. Krall, the State appealed a district court order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a Ford 500 vehicle in a case charging the defendant with murder and gross sexual imposition. The district court found that officers entered the vehicle without a warrant, consent, or valid exception after a probation officer and state's attorney declined to authorize a search or tow, and that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding that the inventory-search exception and inevitable-discovery doctrine did not apply because the State failed to show the evidence would have been discovered through lawful means, such as a probation search, and the district court's findings were supported by the record. The court rejected the State's arguments that other exceptions like exigent circumstances or the automobile exception applied.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, the defendant was charged with attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and tampering with physical evidence after a shooting at a bar in Williston, North Dakota. A jury convicted him of reckless endangerment and tampering with physical evidence but acquitted him of attempted murder. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the reckless endangerment conviction, holding that the district court did not err by omitting a self-defense instruction for that charge. It reversed the tampering conviction, concluding that the jury instructions omitted an essential element and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant substantially obstructed prosecution of a felony, and remanded for entry of acquittal on that charge.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved a dispute over a money judgment entered against Alonna Knorr for her share of unpaid expenses under a prior divorce judgment with Jon Norberg. Knorr appealed after the district court denied her motion to dismiss or vacate the judgment, arguing that a global settlement agreement between the parties had resolved the issues. On remand from a prior appeal, the district court again denied relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), finding that Knorr failed to show the settlement agreement was enforceable (as it required full payment by her, which was not established in the record) and failed to explain her delay in raising the agreement. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because Knorr did not meet her burden to establish sufficient grounds for relief from the judgment.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, the defendant was charged with attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and tampering with physical evidence following a shooting at a bar in Williston, North Dakota. A jury convicted him of reckless endangerment and tampering but acquitted him of attempted murder. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the reckless endangerment conviction, holding that the district court did not err by omitting a self-defense instruction for that charge even though one was given for attempted murder. The court reversed the tampering conviction, finding an obvious error in the jury instructions that omitted an essential element and insufficient evidence that the defendant's actions substantially obstructed or impaired a felony prosecution, and remanded for entry of acquittal on that charge.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, the parties had stipulated to all issues except spousal support and child support. The district court ordered Chad Quamme to pay $1,368 per month in child support, based on a five-year average of his income, and $2,000 per month in spousal support for five years. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the district court failed to properly calculate child support under the guidelines by averaging income without adequate explanation and by improperly including earnings from a prior employer. The court further held that the record did not support the spousal support award because Chad Quamme's documented expenses exceeded his current income, rendering the obligation unrealistic.

family law

This case involved an appeal by Alonna Knorr from a money judgment entered against her for her share of unpaid expenses under a divorce judgment with Jon Norberg. Knorr sought to dismiss or vacate the judgment based on a global settlement agreement she claimed resolved the issues, but the district court denied her motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b). On remand from a prior decision, the court found that Knorr had not explained her delay in raising the agreement and had not shown it was enforceable, as it required full payment to Norberg before becoming effective. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief because Knorr failed to meet her burden under Rule 60(b).

family lawprocedure

The case involved a mother petitioning to terminate the father's parental rights to their three minor children, alleging abandonment due to his history of drug use, lack of contact for several years, and failure to provide financial support. The district court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing, concluding there was not clear and convincing evidence of abandonment under North Dakota law, and also denied the mother's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed both orders, holding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion.

family law

This case involved a dispute over a home construction contract where Justin Shafer sued Justin Scarborough and Diamond Development & Custom Homes for breach of contract, negligence, unjust enrichment, and fraud after the contractor allegedly failed to complete the project on time and with defects including mold issues. The parties proceeded to arbitration under the contract terms, resulting in an award to Shafer of approximately $467,000 in damages, interest, and costs. Shafer asked the district court to modify the award upward to the full contract price under the substantial performance doctrine, while the defendants sought to reduce or deny it. The district court confirmed the arbitration award without modification, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that review of arbitration awards is strictly limited by statute to grounds such as complete irrationality and that courts lack authority to expand those standards to include manifest disregard of the law.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

In Trosen v. Trosen, the dispute centered on a farm lease for land owned by Shirley Trosen and the Trosen Family Trust, under which Jeffery Trosen was required to pay annual rent but made only partial payments for the 2020 and 2021 crop years. The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and lease cancellation, while Jeffery Trosen filed counterclaims and a third-party complaint alleging intentional interference with contract and business relations. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the breach claim, awarding $103,450.80 in damages plus interest split between the estate and trust, terminated the lease, dismissed the counterclaims and third-party complaint due to lack of response, awarded attorney fees, and cancelled a lis pendens. Jeffery Trosen appealed, also challenging apportionment of 2021 rent and other rulings. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lease was a valid contract that was breached, the summary judgment dismissals were proper, and the lis pendens was appropriately cancelled as the action did not affect title to real property.

propertyprocedurefamily law

The case involved B.C., a child with autism spectrum disorder participating in North Dakota's autism voucher program, who sought funding for a temporary garden gazebo and misting system to address temperature regulation issues and a phobia of flying insects. The Department of Human Services denied the gazebo request on the grounds that it constituted a parental responsibility akin to a home improvement or fence, while approving the misting system. An Administrative Law Judge recommended approval after finding the item compensated for autism-related deficits, but the Department rejected that recommendation and upheld the denial. The district court affirmed the Department's decision, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agency's interpretation of its regulation was unreasonable and its conclusions were unsupported by its findings of fact regarding the specific temporary item requested.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved B.C., a child with autism participating in North Dakota's autism spectrum voucher program, who sought funding for a temporary garden gazebo with netting to address overheating and fear of insects. The Department of Human Services denied the request, viewing the gazebo as a parental responsibility equivalent to a home fence or improvement, though it approved a related misting system. An administrative law judge recommended approval, but the Department rejected that recommendation. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's affirmance of the denial, concluding that the agency's interpretation of its regulation was unreasonable and that its legal conclusions were unsupported by its factual findings.

healthcare

The case involved Robert Procive's appeal from a Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) decision denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome allegedly caused by repetitive work activities, along with an order requiring repayment of benefits received. After an administrative law judge upheld WSI's denial, Procive appealed to the district court in Stutsman County, but the court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that under N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01 an appeal must be filed in the county where the injury was inflicted or where the claimant resides, and Procive failed to establish that the progressive injury occurred in Stutsman County or to file in his county of residence. The Court noted that the statutory requirements for perfecting an administrative appeal are jurisdictional and that any difficulties with progressive injuries are matters for legislative resolution.

labor & employmentprocedure

Elton Lovro sued the City of Finley for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract after a city water line connected to his property broke in 2020, causing damage to his driveway and basement. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the claims were barred by discretionary governmental immunity under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12.1, that Lovro failed to establish any waiver of immunity, and that he had waived his breach-of-contract argument on appeal by not adequately briefing it.

torts & liabilityprocedureproperty

Elton Lovro sued the City of Finley for negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract after a city water line connected to his property broke in 2020, causing damage to his driveway and basement. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice, finding them barred by discretionary function immunity under N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12.1. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Lovro did not establish any waiver of immunity by the City, failed to show the summary judgment ruling was premature, and had waived his breach of contract argument by not adequately briefing it.

torts & liability

In this case, Richard Anderson, who had pleaded guilty to corruption of a minor, luring a minor by computer, and sexual assault, moved to challenge the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and related probation conditions that restricted his internet access, arguing they violated his First Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that Anderson’s as-applied constitutional challenge was not ripe for review because he remained incarcerated and had not yet begun probation, making his claims dependent on uncertain future events. The court also declined to address any facial challenge because Anderson failed to adequately brief or argue it.

criminal lawfree speech

In State v. Anderson, the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to corruption of a minor, luring a minor by computer, and sexual assault, appealed the denial of his motion challenging the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(4)(r) and seeking modification of his probation conditions. The challenged condition prohibited him from subscribing to or using the internet without approval from his probation officer. The district court denied the motion, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Anderson’s as-applied constitutional challenge was not ripe because he remained incarcerated and had not yet begun probation, making his claims dependent on uncertain future events. The court also declined to address a facial challenge because Anderson failed to adequately brief and argue the issue.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

In Norberg v. Norberg, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered an appeal by Alonna Knorr from a district court money judgment entered in favor of her ex-husband Jon Norberg for Knorr's unpaid expenses assigned under the parties' 2013 divorce judgment. Knorr moved to dismiss or vacate the order granting Norberg's motion to amend the judgment, arguing that a global settlement agreement between the parties had resolved all pending issues, including the motion to amend. The district court denied her motions, first without explanation and then citing her failure to respond to the original motion. Treating the motions as requests for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the Supreme Court held that the district court did not adequately explain its decision and remanded for further proceedings while retaining jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute following the 2013 divorce of Alonna Knorr and Jon Norberg, where Norberg obtained a money judgment against Knorr for her share of unpaid expenses from the divorce judgment. Knorr moved to dismiss or vacate the order based on a global settlement agreement that she argued resolved all issues, but the district court denied the motions without sufficient explanation. The Supreme Court of North Dakota remanded the case, concluding that the district court failed to adequately explain its decision on the Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment, while retaining jurisdiction for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

This case concerns David Ntoto Mbulu’s appeal from a district court order that partially granted and denied his application for post-conviction relief after his 2017 convictions for conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition, accomplice to gross sexual imposition, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Mbulu’s claims about errors in the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charge, determining that he had abandoned the argument by not presenting evidence or developing it at the evidentiary hearing. It reversed the summary dismissal of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to subpoena and call his co-defendant as a witness, holding that an affidavit from the co-defendant raised genuine issues of material fact requiring an evidentiary hearing. The court noted that the district court had already granted relief by vacating the conspiracy to commit murder conviction due to improper jury instructions, and it remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claim.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Thomas, the defendant appealed his convictions for robbery and terrorizing a child victim after a jury trial, contending that the district court erred by admitting a recorded statement he made to police in which he discussed being willing to risk charges only for a large quantity of cocaine. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because the statement was relevant to the charged offenses involving cocaine and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or jury confusion. The court further held that the defendant's additional argument under evidence rule 404 regarding character evidence was not preserved because he had not raised that specific objection at trial.

criminal lawprocedure