On June 6, 2024, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued several opinions across various cases. Below are summaries of the key highlights from these decisions:
**City of Grand Forks v. Riemers (Docket No.: 20230366)**
Justice Jerod E. Tufte authored this opinion. The court held that once a case is transferred to district court and a criminal information is filed, it is sufficient to initiate prosecution even if not served on the defendant. Additionally, a city can prosecute disorderly conduct under its ordinance unless it supersedes state law. A party cannot challenge jury instruction errors on appeal if waived before the district court.
**Ward, et al. v. Herbel, et al. (Docket No.: 20230140)**
Justice Jon J. Jensen authored this opinion. The court ruled that N.D.C.C. § 32-17-01 requires an adverse claim for statutory standing in property disputes and adopted the majority rule allowing attorneys representing themselves to recover attorney's fees for defending against frivolous lawsuits.
**State v. Jelinek (Docket No.: 20230367)**
Justice Jon J. Jensen authored this opinion as well, determining that a law enforcement officer’s approach to a parked vehicle does not constitute a seizure if conducted conversationally without commands or demands for responses.
**State v. Sargent (consolidated w/20230351) (Docket Nos.: 20230353 & 20230351)**
Justice Douglas Alan Bahr authored both opinions which affirmed that officers may initiate traffic stops upon observing violations and extend them with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
**State v. Goodale (Docket No.: 20230373)**
Justice Jon J. Jensen noted an error in jury instructions using "and" instead of "or," but deemed it harmless as it did not prejudice the defendant.
**Idso v. Idso (Docket No.: 20230387)**
This case involved an order of contempt summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P.35.
**State v. Anderson (Docket No.: 20230344)**
Justice Jerod E.Tufte explained that during lawful traffic stops, additional investigations by another officer do not constitute unlawful seizures if they do not delay the stop.
**Roth, et al., v Meyer, et al., (Docket No.: 20230310)**
Justice Daniel John Crothers emphasized that claims of adverse possession must meet all elements including continuous possession for twenty years and provided guidance on calculating conversion damages based on market values when applicable.
**Kath v Prochnow, et al., (Docket No.: 20230406)**
The court generally refrains from exercising supervisory authority where an appeal is appropriate and allows post-judgment intervention when promptly moved after judgment entry within appeal timeframes.
**State v Massey (Docket No.: 20230396)**
The court required willfulness findings in gross sexual imposition charges lacking specified culpability levels and stressed defendants must show prejudicial effect from unpreserved “golden rule” arguments for reversal under obvious error standards.
___