Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, September 21, 2024

North Dakota Supreme Court releases new opinions on August cases

State AG
Webp 8cqn7zltm75pbxjuvf8qsd2dtuwn

Justice Daniel J. Crothers | North Dakota Supreme Court Website

On August 1, 2024, the following legal opinions were filed:

In Anderson v. Foss, et al. (Docket No.: 20240008), the district court's order was affirmed in part and remanded for 30 days while retaining jurisdiction under N.D.R.App.P. 35(a)(3) for no further proceedings other than to provide additional findings requested by the Court.

In State v. Reiswig (Docket No.: 20240048), the court employed a trustworthiness approach when analyzing whether a confession is sufficiently corroborated. "A person of reasonable caution could conclude the statement 'we did have sex' means sexual intercourse meeting the statutory definition of a sexual act under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-02(4)."

In Heiser, et al. v. Dahl, et al. (Docket No.: 20230323), to satisfy elements for adverse possession, acts must be actual, visible, continuous, notorious, distinct, and hostile to unmistakably indicate an assertion of claim of exclusive ownership by the occupant. Section 28-01-11, N.D.C.C., narrows the scope of adverse possession when not based on a written instrument.

In N.D. Energy Services v. Lime Rock Resources III-A, et al. (Docket No.: 20240096), it was highlighted that a lease must be read in its entirety to determine parties' true intent and that a purchaser who fails to make requisite inquiry cannot claim protection as a good-faith purchaser.

In Nordquist v. Alonge, et al. (Docket No.: 20230329), it was noted that a petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show clear legal right and establish no plain remedy exists in ordinary law courses.

In State v. Watts (Docket No.: 20230358), it was stated that if a defendant fails to object properly or request specific instructions during trial, issues are not preserved for appellate review unless jury instructions constitute obvious error affecting substantial rights.

In Fiebiger v. Anderson (Docket No.: 20240129), non-moving parties in summary judgment proceedings must present admissible evidence raising material fact issues; otherwise, summary judgment may be granted by the district court.

Finally, in Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al. (Docket No.: 20230110), only final judgments determining parties' rights and orders enumerated in N.D.C.C.§28-27-02 are appealable.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News