Beryl J. Levine

This case involved criminal charges against four defendants for allegedly violating a temporary injunction by protesting within a restricted zone outside a Fargo clinic that provided abortion services, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-10-05. The trial court dismissed the charges, ruling that the injunction had expired by operation of law under N.D.C.C. § 32-06-03 after six months without a hearing on making it permanent. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the injunction remained valid at the time of the alleged violations because the six-month limit does not automatically dissolve an injunction absent a timely motion to dissolve or hearing demand, and the defendants' challenge came too late to affect the criminal case. The court noted that prior civil proceedings had affirmed the injunction's validity and a trial judge had explicitly stated it remained in effect after a mistrial.

abortioncriminal lawfree speech

Wachter Development sued Arnold Gomke and other owners of real property for specific performance of a purchase agreement, damages, or other relief after three of the four owners signed the agreement but the fourth did not, and the owners later refused to complete the sale. The district court granted summary judgment to the owners and dismissed the complaint. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to enforceability under the statute of frauds and part performance, precluding summary judgment as a matter of law.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a disciplinary proceeding against attorney William E. Gray for violating DR 9-102 of the North Dakota Code of Professional Responsibility by improperly transferring $65,000 in client funds from a trust account to personal and firm accounts without the client's knowledge or a proper accounting, then withdrawing funds for personal expenses while failing to bill or document the work performed on an estate matter. A hearing panel recommended a six-month suspension of Gray's law license, which the Disciplinary Board accepted, but the North Dakota Supreme Court instead imposed a public reprimand along with an order to pay costs. The court reasoned that Gray's actions breached the rules requiring client funds to be safeguarded and accounted for, but considered factors such as the level of injury, Gray's partial performance of legal services that benefited the estate, and the applicable sanctions standards to conclude that a reprimand was the appropriate discipline rather than suspension.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from medical malpractice claims by three patients against Trinity Medical Center and related parties, alleging that a neurosurgeon negligently performed surgeries on the wrong spinal locations and that the hospital was liable for negligent credentialing and supervision. The dispute focused on discovery requests for information and documents related to the hospital's internal review of the surgeon's care, with Trinity asserting protection under North Dakota's peer review and quality assurance privilege statutes. The Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over the non-appealable district court discovery order, directing the lower court to vacate its broad June 30, 1995 order and issue a new one defining the privilege's scope to cover only specific committee communications and records. The core reasoning emphasized the statutory text limiting the privilege, the burden on the party claiming it, and the need for precise application rather than blanket assertions.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved William Moran challenging the North Dakota Department of Transportation's suspension of his driving privileges following an arrest for driving under the influence. A deputy sheriff stopped Moran after observing his vehicle weaving and crossing the center line four times in two miles, noted an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes, conducted field sobriety tests including HGN, and arrested him after an Intoxilyzer test showed a blood alcohol concentration of .16 percent. The hearing officer suspended Moran's license for 365 days based on probable cause, the district court reversed finding insufficient evidence due to improper reliance on certain test results, and the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court to reinstate the suspension. The court reasoned that the officer's observations of erratic driving, alcohol odor, and bloodshot eyes independently established probable cause to arrest for DUI, even excluding disputed sobriety test evidence, and that these findings supported the agency's decision under the applicable review standards.

criminal law

In State v. Barnett, the defendant appealed his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, challenging the trial court's handling of his warrantless arrest in his home, the loss of an audio recording from an informant's wire, and the prosecutor's closing argument. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court properly suppressed only evidence obtained after the illegal arrest, denied the motion to suppress all evidence from the wire, and refused the requested jury instruction on lost evidence. The court reasoned that under Payton v. New York and New York v. Harris, suppression is limited to evidence that serves the warrant requirement's purpose of protecting the home, that the lack of bad faith in losing the tape raised no due process violation, and that the given instruction was more favorable to the defendant than the one requested. The court also held that any potential issue with the closing argument was not obvious error preserved for review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved North Shore appealing the denial of its Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a prior judgment that quieted title to land in favor of Wakefield and Schafer and awarded them damages for North Shore dumping fill on the property, including costs for restoration, revegetation, and loss of use. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion. The court held that the money damages award did not qualify for relief under Rule 60(b)(v) because such judgments lack prospective application, and that fluctuating water levels from Devils Lake did not present exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(vi) since riparian owners are subject to natural gains and losses and the defendant remains liable for the harm caused.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved whether Northern X-Ray Company, a Minnesota corporation that sold and installed medical equipment in North Dakota clinics through leasing companies, was liable for use taxes as a 'contractor' under NDCC section 57-40.2-03.3. The Tax Commissioner assessed the tax after an audit, a hearing officer and district court affirmed, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the term 'contractor' in the use tax statute was ambiguous and, using statutory interpretation aids including related licensing laws, concluded it referred only to construction industry contractors. Therefore, Northern was not subject to the tax for its equipment installation work.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Ensminger, Robert Ensminger was convicted by a jury of being an accomplice to attempted murder and robbery after an attack on his employer involving a sledgehammer and knife, followed by theft of the victim's wallet and truck. Ensminger appealed, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed evidence the State disclosed late in violation of discovery rules and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress because Ensminger failed to show prejudice from the untimely disclosure of fingerprint reports, medical records, and photographs. The court also held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the jury's findings, including witness testimony placing Ensminger at the scene with the weapon and his own admissions. The decision relied on interpretations of NDRCrimP 16 and standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Terri Duncklee's legal malpractice lawsuit against her former divorce attorney, Karen Wills, alleging negligence in failing to secure an equitable share of her ex-husband's military pension during 1987 divorce proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, ruling that Duncklee had admitted the merits of Wills' statute-of-limitations defense by not filing a timely response to the motion under Rule 3.2 of the North Dakota Rules of Court. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ten-day response period did not begin until Wills served the omitted attachments that were expressly made part of her motion brief, making Duncklee's May 22 response timely. The court further reasoned that Duncklee's deposition testimony raised a genuine issue of material fact about when she knew or should have known of the potential malpractice claim, rendering summary judgment inappropriate under Rule 56.

proceduretorts & liabilityfamily law

In Knoop v. Knoop, a divorced couple disputed the ex-husband's payments to the ex-wife from his military retirement benefits after he accepted a federal civil service position requiring waiver of a portion of those benefits under the Dual Compensation Act. The ex-wife sought contempt sanctions, arguing the decree entitled her to 36.5 percent of the full pre-waiver retirement pay after tax withholding, while the ex-husband maintained the percentage applied only to the reduced disposable pay. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the contempt proceeding because the amended divorce judgment was ambiguous as to the scope of "retirement pay" when read against federal statutes on disposable retired pay and direct payment mechanisms, precluding a finding of willful violation. The court remanded for further proceedings to clarify the judgment under correct application of federal law.

family lawfederal power

In Fenske v. Fenske, a husband appealed a trial court judgment granting his wife a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences, awarding her spousal support and child custody, ordering child support, and dividing property and debts. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full. The court held that the husband failed to demonstrate any due process violation from the lack of a recorded transcript of closing arguments, as he did not request recording or show prejudice, and Administrative Rule 39 does not require recording of all proceedings absent such a request. The court further concluded that the spousal support award and property division were not clearly erroneous, as the trial court properly considered the parties' circumstances, the short marriage, and the limited cash available. The court awarded the wife $250 in attorney fees and costs on appeal.

family lawprocedure

This case involved a custody dispute over Andrew Krank between his parents Bruce Krank and Annette Jones, with both parties alleging domestic violence against the other. On remand from a prior appeal, the trial court found that Krank had inflicted a disproportionate amount of domestic violence, applied the statutory presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator under NDCC § 14-09-06.2, and granted Jones sole physical custody along with joint legal custody. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's overall findings on the domestic violence issue were sufficiently specific and supported by the evidence, and that the custody determination was not clearly erroneous. The mother's cross-appeal on child support was dismissed because the trial court's order was not final, as it anticipated modification upon receipt of additional financial information from Krank.

family law

James Kary sued Prudential Insurance Company for fraudulent inducement to enter an employment contract, claiming he was misled by statements from a manager about expected first-year earnings of $40,000 and third-year earnings of $100,000, as well as later statements about other agents' incomes. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the initial earnings projection was non-actionable puffery rather than a false statement of fact, and Kary failed to demonstrate reliance on the subsequent statements as an essential element of fraud under state law.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

Stephanie Bengson was convicted by a jury of harassment under North Dakota law for making thirty-five telephone calls over two days to the home of her ex-boyfriend's parents. She appealed directly, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial attorney allegedly failed to explore whether the calls had a legitimate purpose and did not adequately investigate the case. The court examined the trial record and found no affirmative evidence that counsel's performance was deficient. It therefore affirmed the conviction, noting that an inadequate record on direct appeal would require pursuing the claim in postconviction proceedings instead.

criminal lawprocedure

In Helbling v. Helbling, the case involved a divorced couple's dispute over modifying an existing child support order after physical custody of their children shifted from the father to the mother and the father's income had increased. The mother moved to raise the father's monthly support obligation to align with North Dakota's child support guidelines, but the district court denied the motion, finding the existing amount appropriate. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded, holding that under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-08.4(3), once a support order is more than one year old, it must be amended to conform to the guidelines if the moving party shows nonconformity based on income evidence. The court reasoned that the mother had established a prima facie case through tax returns demonstrating the father's higher gross income and relocation reimbursements, which qualified as income, thereby shifting the burden to the father, and that the trial court had misapplied the burden of proof by requiring the mother to prove additional deductions.

family law

The case involved Dr. Gaston Magrinat seeking an injunction to prevent Trinity Hospital from suspending his practice privileges during an investigation into an incident where he allegedly acted disruptively during a patient's heart attack treatment. The trial court granted the injunction, but the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the hospital's bylaws authorized the interim suspension and the Executive Committee reasonably determined it was necessary to prevent potential harm to patients. The court reasoned that hospitals need not wait for actual harm before taking summary action and that courts should defer to the hospital's findings regarding patient care threats. The judgment enjoining the suspension was vacated.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Schindele, the State appealed a district court order suppressing evidence of the defendant's intoxication and 24-hour detention for detoxification in a simple assault prosecution arising from a domestic incident. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under NDCC § 29-28-07(5) because the prosecutor failed to show that the suppressed evidence constituted substantial proof of a fact material to the proceeding. The core reasoning was that intoxication is neither an element of nor a defense to simple assault under the relevant statutes, other witnesses could testify to the defendant's sobriety, and the excluded testimony would therefore be cumulative and not materially assist the case.

criminal lawprocedure

In Schmidt v. Schmidt, the son purchased his parents' family farm via a 1978 contract for deed but made few payments, leading the mother's estate after her 1990 death to sue in district court to cancel the contract. The son raised defenses including a claimed $30,000 payment, a devise of the farm under the mother's will, and laches due to delay. The district court held the action in abeyance pending probate proceedings, which determined the will did not devise the farm to the son and calculated the contract balance; after the son's unsuccessful appeal of the probate order, the district court granted summary judgment canceling the contract based on res judicata from the probate order. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the unsupervised probate order was a final, appealable concluding order on the relevant issues without needing Rule 54(b) certification, and that the son presented no evidence of prejudice to support laches.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case involved S & S Landscaping Company's challenge to a North Dakota Workers’ Compensation Bureau order awarding medical benefits to former employee Troy Vise for a June 1992 back injury sustained at work. The Bureau initially granted benefits after reviewing the claim, reaffirmed the award following a hearing where Vise and witnesses testified, and the district court upheld it. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a preponderance of the evidence supported the Bureau’s factual finding of a work-related injury based on credited testimony, and that the Bureau’s dual role as advocate and decision-maker, along with its attorney’s actions at the hearing, complied with state administrative procedure statutes and did not deny S & S a fair hearing.

labor & employmentprocedure