Opinions

Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al.
Docket No.: 20230110
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the parties' rights to an action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 are appealable.

Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies to final judgments or orders. A final judgment is a decree, order, or judgment "from which an appeal lies." N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a).

Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., recognizes a district court may direct entry of a final judgment against only some of the parties to a litigation, but until final judgment is entered all orders are subject to revision.

Harris v. Oasis Petroleum, et al.
Docket No.: 20230279
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A motion to alter or amend the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(j) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The question of who is a prevailing party under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06 is a question of law, subject to de novo review.
A prevailing party in a tort action must at least prevail on the issues of negligence and proximate cause. There may not be a single prevailing party when opposing parties each prevail on some issues.
Under North Dakota's comparative fault statute, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02, in the case of a contributorily negligent plaintiff, any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering. However, N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 does not provide for any diminution in the costs and disbursements to be allowed to a recovering plaintiff.
A district court has the discretion to award a prevailing party costs and disbursements under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06, without reduction by the party's percentage of fault. The law does not require a court to reduce costs awarded to the prevailing party based on its percentage of fault.

Glaum v. State
Docket No.: 20230236
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Rule 58 of the North Dakota Supreme Court Administrative Rules addresses vexatious litigation. Litigation means any civil or disciplinary action or proceeding, including any appeal from an administrative agency, any review of a referee order by the district court, and any appeal to the supreme court. Rule 58 does not apply to criminal actions or documents filed in criminal actions.

An appeal from a vexatious litigant pre-filing order must be filed with the clerk of the supreme court within 60 days of service of notice of entry of the order. When there is no service of notice of entry of the order or evidence of actual knowledge of entry, the time for filing a notice of appeal does not begin to run.

A presiding judge may determine a person is a vexatious litigant based on the finding that in the immediately preceding seven-year period the person has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained as a self-represented party at least three litigations that have been finally determined adversely to that person.

If a response to the proposed pre-filing order is filed, the presiding judge may, in the judge's discretion, grant a hearing on the proposed order.

An appellant is precluded from challenging an order that was not appealed from in the notice of appeal and raising an issue for the first time on appeal.

State v. Williams
Docket No.: 20230300
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

SPOTTIE v. BAIUL-FARINA, et al.
Docket No.: 20230195
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Case Highlight: Wholesale adoption of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is disapproved.

District courts retain authority to revisit interlocutory orders until entry of final judgment.

Under the doctrine of merger, the provisions of an executory contract merge into an instrument conveying real property. Absent fraud or mistake, the conveying instrument alone governs determination of the rights of the parties to the transaction.

Recordation of a granting instrument is not necessary to effect a conveyance. Nor is it necessary for a plaintiff to present the original conveying instrument to prevail in quiet title action. In a quiet title action ownership may be established through evidence that a conveying instrument was delivered but subsequently lost.
The equitable defense of laches may be available when a party delays enforcing his rights and a change in conditions during the delay results in prejudice to an adverse party.

To have standing to litigate an issue a party must have suffered some injury from the putatively illegal action and the party must assert his own legal rights and interests and cannot rest his claim on the legal rights and interests of third parties.

Parties may contract to a fee recovery standard that is either looser or stricter than statutory standards.

Interest of Skorick
Docket No.: 20230330
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior.

Zander, et al. v. Morsette
Docket No.: 20230103
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The district court controls the scope and substance of opening and closing arguments, and a district court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

A party is not prejudiced by a counsel's improper arguments when the district court instructs the jury not to consider counsel's comments as evidence.

A court may grant a new trial on grounds the jury awarded excessive damages appearing to have been awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice. To justify the granting of a new trial, passion and prejudice usually connote anger, resentment, hate, and disregard of the rights of others.

When a jury awards excessive damages, under appropriate circumstances, the district court and this Court on appeal, may order a reduction of the verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess damages.

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385)
Docket No.: 20230382
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384, & 20230385)
Docket No.: 20230383
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383, & 20230385)
Docket No.: 20230384
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).