Robert Vogel

The case Arneson v. Olson concerned the constitutionality of North Dakota's Chapter 26-40.1, enacted to limit professional liability for qualifying physicians in medical malpractice cases, create a patient trust fund for compensation, restrict claims procedures such as informed consent and expert testimony requirements, and limit joinder of actions. The North Dakota Supreme Court held the chapter unconstitutional in its entirety. The core reasoning was that key provisions, including the damage limitation in Section 26-40.1-11 and related restrictions on remedies and claims, violated due process and equal protection by arbitrarily capping recoveries and altering traditional tort rules without sufficient justification, rendering the interconnected statute invalid as a whole.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved three of eight children of a former ward suing the corporate conservator for allegedly breaching a pre-appointment oral agreement to lease the ward's real property only through public bidding procedures, in exchange for the plaintiffs withdrawing their objections to the appointment. After the conservatorship ended with court approval of the final account and no objections raised, the plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on res judicata grounds. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed but on the ground that any such contract would be unenforceable as against public policy, since it would restrict the conservator's statutory discretionary powers without notice to the court or other interested parties.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Everson, the former general agent and organizer of an insurance company later merged with the defendant, and the successor company over unpaid overriding commissions on insurance policies, including whether the company could deduct sub-agents' debts from Everson's account. Everson sued for approximately $380,000 in commissions plus other relief, and a jury awarded him $160,460.62 after rejecting punitive damages and an abandoned IRS-related claim, while also granting the defendants' full counterclaim. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the account was a mutual account involving ongoing debits and credits, so the six-year statute of limitations did not bar older items as long as the latest was timely; it also found the contract ambiguous on the one-year objection deadline for statements and on charge-backs for sub-agents not under Everson's supervision, allowing the jury to resolve the intent of the parties based on the contract language and circumstances.

business & regulatory

The case involved Mr. and Mrs. Sande suing the City of Grand Forks and its Urban Renewal Agency for over $500,000 in damages after the Agency allegedly gave incorrect advice based on outdated federal regulations, denying them relocation funds to alter a new site for their bus depot business following the Agency's purchase of their original property in an urban renewal district. The Sandes had moved in 1975, lost their Greyhound contract after being told alterations could not be reimbursed, had their later claim rejected by the Agency and HUD, and sued in tort for abuse of discretion. The district court dismissed the suit, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal as a summary judgment. The court held that the Urban Renewal Agency is a municipal corporation whose actions fell within the discretionary function exception to liability, so the Sandes could not recover even if the advice was negligent.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by the mother from a juvenile court determination that her child was deprived under North Dakota law, resulting in legal custody being placed with the county social service center and physical custody with the father following the parents' divorce. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the deprivation finding and remanded the matter. The core reasoning was that the deprivation hearing had been improperly combined with a divorce-related custody modification proceeding, contrary to statutes requiring separate hearings and limiting juvenile court jurisdiction. The court also noted that the petition failed to allege specific facts as required by statute, providing inadequate notice, and that procedural rules for conducting adjudicatory and dispositional phases were not followed.

family lawprocedure

The case involved disputes over the interpretation and constitutionality of the federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and North Dakota's corresponding statute regulating outdoor advertising signs along interstate and primary highways. Newman Signs challenged the state's restrictions on billboards, while the Highway Commissioner sought enforcement to maintain federal funding eligibility. The court determined that the state law became effective on January 1, 1968, rather than later dates tied to federal agreements, and upheld the statute as a valid time, place, and manner regulation of commercial speech justified by interests in traffic safety and aesthetics that left open alternative channels for communication. It reversed the district court's judgment in part on the effective date and related issues and remanded for further proceedings.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryenvironmentfederal power