CBA Credit Services v. Azar - Civil No. 960044 Because advancing blackjack chips on credit to a player was forbidden by the tribal-state compact and was not lawful gaming activity under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the gambling debt could not be enforced under Section 541.21, Minn. Stat. Ann. A credit bureau, as an assignee of the casino's interest in the debt, received no more right of enforcement than that held by the casino.
City of Fargo v. Ness - Civil No. 950395 A deck extending to the side lot boundary of the owner's property did not violate a city zoning ordinance, and the city was not entitled to an injunction requiring the owner to remove or modify the deck. A city's erroneous interpretation of an unambiguous ordinance is not entitled to deference.
City of Grand Forks v. Dohman - Criminal No. 950427 The district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily imposing a punitive contempt sanction in response to contemptuous remarks made by defendant to the jury.
City of Jamestown v. Leevers Supermarkets, Inc. - Civil Nos. 950328 & 950366 The stimulation of commercial growth and removal of economic stagnation sought by the Urban Renewal Law, Chapter 40-58, N.D.C.C., are objectives satisfying the public use and purpose requirement of N.D. Const. Art I, 16 and U.S. Const. Amend. V. The city did not abuse its discretion in finding the taking of private property in downtown Jamestown for development of a retail food store was necessary in the interests of the public economy, health and welfare of its residents. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the primary object of the proposed development was for the economic welfare of downtown Jamestown, in which the taking would be constitutional, or for the benefit of the private developer, in which the taking would be unconstitutional. A trial court has no statutory authority in an eminent domain proceeding to assess the costs and fees of the city's expert appraiser against the landowner whose property was taken.
Estate of Luken - Civil No. 960007 After electing to take his share of his deceased spouse's augmented estate, the surviving spouse failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his property was derived from his deceased spouse. The trial court, therefore, did not err in allowing the value of the surviving spouse's business to be included in the augmented estate. The trial court's valuation of the business was not clearly erroneous. The trial court erred by not including in the augmented estate the value of several individual retirement accounts the decedent made payable to her children.
Fahlsing v. Teters - Civil No. 950377 The subject judgment was not an impermissible attack on a previous order and judgment. The order was interlocutory, and the previous judgment was void because its entry had not been directed by the court.
In the Interest of R.A. - Civil No. 960182 An order for involuntary commitment which is supported by clear and convincing evidence cannot be impeached by a collateral attack on a prior order committing the respondent for treatment.
In the Interest of C.W. - Civil No. 960152 In an involuntary commitment proceeding, the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's conclusion the respondent was a person requiring treatment and there was a reasonable expectation the respondent posed a serious risk of harm if untreated. The evidence clearly and convincingly supported the trial court's authorization of forced medication for the respondent, and the prescribed medication was the least restrictive form of intervention necessary to meet the respondent's current medical needs.
Jacobs v. State of North Dakota - Civil No. 960001 The State Personnel Board's finding that an employee was demoted for failing to complete his work in a timely manner and not in retaliation for protected activity was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Linrud v. Linrud - Civil No. 960049 The trial court's assessment of child support for the time the divorce was pending was not clearly erroneous. The trial court committed reversible error by not adequately explaining its reasoning for the substantial disparity in the property division. The appellant failed to develop an adequate record showing waste of marital assets.
Ohlson v. North Dakota Department of Human Services - Civil No. 960012 The Department of Human Services' decision that a mother seeking medical assistance benefits was not an incapacitated parent under either a homemaker or a breadwinner standard was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
P. E. v. W. C. - Civil No. 960063 Under Section 14-17-05(1)(b), N.D.C.C., a man alleged to be the father of a child may not raise the five year statute of limitations to shield his potential parental obligations or to preclude a presumed father by marital relationship from rebutting the presumption of paternity in Section 14-17-04(1)(a), N.D.C.C. A demand for a jury trial in an amended pleading which raises the same general factual issue as the initial pleading is not timely.
Peterson v. Huso - Civil No. 960065 A victim's repressed memory of past sexual abuse does not constitute a disability under Section 28-01-25, N.D.C.C. The two-year limitation period does not begin to run until the victim knows, or with reasonable diligence should know, a potential claim exists.
Richmond v. Nodland - Civil No. 960104 Defamatory statements voluntarily made to law enforcement officers during investigation of criminal activity are qualifiedly privileged.
State v. Olson - Criminal No. 950342 Although the defendant did not directly communicate threats to the victim, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a guilty verdict for terrorizing, because the jury could have reasonably decided the defendant recklessly disregarded the risk his threats would be communicated to the victim
State v. Sadek - Civil No. 960026 The failure to make a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence on the ground the evidence was illegally obtained constitutes a waiver of the motion, unless the movant establishes cause.
State v. Steinmetz - Criminal No. 950362 A police officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion for an investigative stop where the officer approached the defendant's stopped vehicle and, while conversing with the defendant, smelled alcohol on his breath and obtained a statement that the defendant had been drinking.
State v. Storbakken - Criminal No. 950359 Minor traffic violations provide a law enforcement officer with a reasonable and articulable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory stop of a vehicle. An administrative hearing officer's determination of whether an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle does not preclude relitigation of the issue in a related criminal proceeding. Although a motorist who has submitted to a properly administered chemical test yielding a readable result may refuse to submit to a second test, a motorist may not refuse a second test if the first test was defective and was aborted before breath samples were provided.
State v. Thompson - Criminal No. 950372 The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion of the defendant, an attorney, to excuse for cause a juror who was a former client of another attorney in the defendant's law firm. Although the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior accident because the State did not give "reasonable notice in advance of trial" as required by Rule 404(b), N.D.R.Ev., the error was harmless.
State v. Winkler - Criminal Nos. 950370-371 Law enforcement officers did not conduct a warrantless search by entering defendant's property via his driveway and observing defendant's pickup from outside his open garage. However, the officers' entry into defendant's open garage without a warrant constituted an unlawful search. A later-obtained search warrant was supported by probable cause derived from sources independent of the officers' unlawful entry into the defendant's garage. However, remand was necessary for a determination whether the officers' decision to seek the warrant was caused by what they saw during the unlawful entry. Statements voluntarily made by the defendant prior to his arrest were not required to be suppressed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude the results of an Intoxilyzer test in the prosecution for negligent homicide.