Ronald Norwood Davies

In Rygg v. United States, the plaintiffs sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for property damage caused by flooding of their North Dakota farmland, which allegedly resulted from the negligent placement of excavated soil during construction of missile cable trenches in 1964. The United States moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) as it existed before the 1966 amendments. The court granted the motion, holding that the claim accrued no later than July 1964 and that the early complaint forms submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers could not toll the limitations period because they did not seek a monetary amount not exceeding $2,500. The court further rejected the argument that ongoing flooding constituted a continuing tort, noting that all damages were recoverable from the date of accrual.

torts & liabilityprocedurepropertyfederal power

This case involved a negligence lawsuit and counterclaim arising from a 1965 truck collision at a North Dakota missile site construction project. Plaintiff Floyd Lovelette, who owned and drove one truck, sued defendant Herman Braun, who owned and drove the other, along with their common employer Morrison-Knudsen; Lovelette's wife also claimed loss of consortium. Both drivers had applied for and received workers' compensation benefits as Morrison-Knudsen employees. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Act barred suits against the employer or co-employees for on-the-job injuries once benefits were awarded, and that the compensation bureau's determination of employee status was conclusive under principles of res judicata. The court separately dismissed the consortium claim as likewise barred by the Act and dismissed the counterclaim on the same grounds, while leaving truck-damage claims for later proceedings.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a North Dakota professional corporation and its incorporators seeking a declaratory judgment that the entity was a valid corporation under Internal Revenue Code §401(a), which would qualify its employee pension trust for tax-exempt status, along with an injunction barring the IRS District Director from denying that corporate status. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the action. It held that federal courts lack jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §2201 because the suit sought a declaration of rights with respect to federal taxes, that the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. §7421(a)) barred the requested injunctive relief, and that the complaint failed to allege the jurisdictional amount in controversy required by 28 U.S.C. §1331.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case was a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by the administrator of Eloise A. Newgard's estate against the United States, seeking damages for the benefit of her three minor children after she was killed by her husband in July 1965. The husband, a veteran with a history of psychotic episodes and threats against his wife, had been committed to state and then VA psychiatric facilities; the suit alleged negligence by VA staff, particularly in granting him an unsupervised one-week pass without proper evaluation or notification. The court found that the VA hospital's gross negligence in handling the patient's release and supervision was the sole proximate cause of the death. It awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages based on the loss of the mother's services, guidance, and future earnings.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involved a criminal indictment against Roger S. Bandy for violating 18 U.S.C. § 3146, where he moved to dismiss due to an alleged unreasonable delay in bringing him to trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b) and the Sixth Amendment. The court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. The reasoning was that the right to a speedy trial is relative and depends on circumstances, the delay was not shown to be purposeful or oppressive, and it is the defendant's duty to request a speedy trial if desired.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a product liability action brought by Shane Stromsodt, a minor, against Parke-Davis and Company concerning injuries the child allegedly sustained after receiving two doses of the company's Quadrigen vaccine in 1959. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff and awarded $500,000 in damages. It held that the manufacturer breached an implied warranty and was negligent because the quadruple antigen product had known stability problems with its pertussis component that caused serious adverse reactions, applying strict liability principles under both tort and warranty theories without regard to privity or traditional contract defenses.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a Colorado corporation that manufactured electric arc welders suing two former North Dakota employees and their new competing company to enforce non-compete covenants from employment contracts and to recover damages for alleged breaches. The contracts contained clauses selecting Colorado law for construction and venue in Colorado, but the employees had performed their work in North Dakota before resigning and forming a rival business. The court ruled that North Dakota substantive law governs the dispute in this diversity case, following the forum state's conflict-of-laws rules, and that the contractual choice of Colorado law was ineffective because it conflicted with North Dakota public policy. North Dakota Century Code § 9-08-06 voids contracts restraining lawful businesses except in narrow exceptions not applicable to post-employment covenants, as confirmed by state precedent, rendering the non-competes unenforceable.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involved American Casualty Company suing Dakota Tractor & Equipment Company to recover losses under two indemnity agreements, by which Dakota Tractor had agreed to indemnify American Casualty as surety on road construction bonds issued for contractor James Coghlan. The court found that Dakota Tractor's officers executed the agreements, which specifically covered two North Dakota projects, and that the company ratified them through subsequent conduct, including participation in related assignments of contract proceeds. Dakota Tractor's defenses of lack of corporate authorization and fraud were rejected, as the court noted that officers of a closely held corporation may bind it informally and that ratification can be inferred from inaction after knowledge of the acts. The court awarded American Casualty judgment for $88,729.84 plus interest, based on losses incurred under the bonds.

business & regulatory

The case involved the estate of L.N. Altendorf, who died in 1960; after the executor paid additional federal estate taxes assessed by the IRS on gifts made shortly before death under Internal Revenue Code §2035, the estate was closed, and the heirs then sued the United States for a refund, winning a jury verdict in 1964. The court addressed whether the heirs could deduct the attorney's fees and costs from that litigation as administration expenses when computing the estate tax under §2053(a). The court held that such fees were deductible, reasoning that the regulations (26 C.F.R. §20.2053-3) expressly permit deductions for reasonable attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting a refund claim, and that the heirs should not be penalized for bringing the action themselves rather than through the executor before the estate closed.

taxesprocedure

In United States v. Scott, the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 612 with willfully publishing and distributing an anonymous pamphlet about a candidate for U.S. Senate in a special election, without naming the persons or groups responsible. The defendant moved to dismiss the information, arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment by compelling disclosure of identity in political speech. The court denied the motion, holding that the statute was constitutional because the public interest in informed voting and preventing anonymous campaign materials outweighed any incidental burden on speech. The decision distinguished Talley v. California and relied on balancing tests from recent Supreme Court precedent, concluding that Congress validly regulated practices related to federal elections.

electionsfree speechcriminal lawfederal power

This Miller Act case involved a dispute over remaining funds from a subcontract for utilities work on a federal Air Force base project. York Electric, the subcontractor, defaulted due to financial issues; its surety Home Indemnity took control, set up a joint account, advanced funds for labor and materials (but not withholding taxes), and ultimately completed the work through York and another firm. The U.S. Government asserted tax liens for York's unpaid payroll taxes and claimed the funds, while Home Indemnity, as assignee, sued the prime contractor Oil Capital and its surety American Employers' for the balance. The court held Home Indemnity liable for the $2,345.25 in taxes because the subcontract required payment of all taxes and Home Indemnity had effectively completed performance, awarding the Government that amount plus interest from the interpleaded funds and the remainder ($9,654.75) to Home Indemnity. The ruling rested on the bond terms, the tax payment covenant in the subcontract, and precedents distinguishing sureties that directly guarantee tax obligations or step into the contractor's role.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved Carl Harvey Bistram, convicted of kidnapping after pleading guilty, who filed his third successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence eleven years later on the ground that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the plea. The district court denied the motion and request for a hearing. The court reasoned that the records and files conclusively showed no basis for relief, that Bistram had multiple prior opportunities to raise mental competency (including in a plenary hearing on a prior motion) without doing so or explaining the omission, and that precedents interpreting § 2255 barred entertaining such successive motions based on grounds available but not asserted earlier.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bryant v. United States, three petitioners filed motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 seeking to vacate their judgments after pleading guilty to six counts each of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 2314 by interstate transportation of forged securities; they had been arrested, waived preliminary hearings, and received consecutive prison sentences on the counts plus probation. The district court denied all motions without a hearing. It reasoned that the guilty pleas admitted all factual averments, cured non-jurisdictional defects, and waived defenses, that multiple counts support consecutive sentences, that claims of coercion or improper inducement were unsupported by the record and contradicted by the petitioners' statements and counsel's presence, and that other jurisdictional or sentencing challenges were either premature or meritless.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between landlord Grand Forks Seed Company and tenant Northland Greyhound Lines over the division of $13,000 in fire insurance proceeds paid after a leased building was destroyed. The lease required the landlord to insure the building (including any tenant-made improvements) for the benefit of both parties 'as their interests may appear,' and provided that improvements would become the landlord's property. After the fire, the parties could not agree on how to split the $13,000 policy that covered the tenant's $13,000 in improvements, leading to this lawsuit. The court held that the tenant's interest was limited to its right to use the improvements for the remaining lease term (including a five-year renewal option), entitling Greyhound to $10,544.44 of the proceeds and the landlord to the remaining $2,455.56, based on the lease terms and precedents interpreting similar 'as their interests may appear' language.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a married couple suing two surgeons for malpractice after a Kelly forceps was left in the wife's abdomen during an emergency abdominal surgery in 1954, requiring a second operation in 1956 to remove it. The jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs, and the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court reasoned that while the initial surgery was performed under urgent conditions justifying limited exploration, the surgeons were negligent in failing to ensure no foreign objects remained, either during or after the operation via x-ray, and that res ipsa loquitur applied because leaving a foreign object in the body constitutes clear negligence even without expert testimony.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a federal indictment charging two defendants, Harvick and Beattie, with separate counts of income tax evasion for filing false returns in 1952 and 1953 under 26 U.S.C.A. § 145(b). The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it failed to state an offense, improperly joined offenses under Rule 8(a), and misjoined defendants under Rule 8(b) without alleging any connection between them. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the indictment sufficient and the counts properly joined as to each defendant individually, but ruled that the defendants were misjoined because the charges did not allege participation in the same acts or transactions. Consequently, the court ordered separate trials for each defendant on its own motion under Rule 14 to prevent prejudice, while allowing for possible future consolidation if appropriate.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

This case involves Charles V. Wilson challenging an administrative denial of Old Age Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act after he sold his insurance agency to his son in 1954. The referee found that the sale was not made in good faith, that Wilson remained engaged in self-employment with earnings above allowable limits, and that he continued rendering substantial services, resulting in deduction of benefits for 1954 and 1955. On the Secretary's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the referee's findings were not conclusive because they were not supported by substantial evidence and appeared contrary to the record, including Wilson's uncontradicted testimony about the transaction. The court further noted potential unfairness from the referee serving in both investigative and adjudicative roles, contrary to Administrative Procedure Act requirements. It denied the motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact required further judicial review.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

This case involves a negligence lawsuit arising from a multi-vehicle collision on a public street in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where the plaintiff was injured as a passenger. The plaintiff filed suit in state court under the Nonresident Motorist Statute, and the defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. A third-party defendant moved to vacate an order impleading him and to remand the case, arguing that the absence of a state court file and delayed filing of removal papers defeated federal jurisdiction. The court denied the motions, holding that state court jurisdiction vested upon valid service of process, that filing the removal petition in state court is a procedural step that does not affect federal jurisdiction once properly initiated, and that the delay was excusable without allowing plaintiffs to block removal by withholding filings.

proceduretorts & liability

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by the U.S. Attorney General, as successor to the Alien Property Custodian, to determine ownership of interests in a residuary trust created by the 1934 will of Ferdinand Leutz, a North Dakota resident. The Custodian issued vesting orders seeking to confiscate the interests of Leutz's German-resident wife Helene and daughter Grete, prompting claims challenging the trust's validity on grounds including illegal accumulation of income and whether beneficiaries held seizable equitable interests. The court analyzed North Dakota trust law, including provisions on spendthrift trusts and the separation of legal and equitable interests, and addressed related claims involving accounting for a widow's allowance and proceeds from bank stock. It concluded that the trust was valid, that beneficiaries held equitable interests not subject to certain conditions precedent, and that the trustee had properly accounted in at least one instance, while dismissing or resolving other claims. Core reasoning relied on state statutes and precedents distinguishing mere possibilities from vested interests and upholding discretionary trustee powers under the will's terms.

propertyfamily lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involved Minneapolis Brewing Company seeking to recover payment for goods sold to E. B. Merritt, Inc., and enforce a personal guaranty by E. B. Merritt. After a default judgment was entered due to the defendants' attorney's negligence, the defendants moved to vacate it and filed answers including a defense limiting the guaranty's scope and a counterclaim for losses from alleged misrepresentation. The court vacated the default judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b) due to excusable neglect and pleading inadequacies that could lead to improper double recovery, and denied motions to strike the defense or dismiss the counterclaim, finding it stated a viable claim for misrepresentation allowable as a permissive counterclaim in a contract action.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability