On August 28, 2024, three significant opinions were issued in appellate cases concerning civil malpractice, contracts, and post-conviction relief.
In the case of Wollan v. Innovis Health (Docket No.: 20240094), authored by Douglas Alan Bahr, the court highlighted that a jury's special verdict will be reversed only if it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence. The presumption on appeal is that jurors do not intend to return conflicting answers. The reconciliation of a verdict includes an examination of both the law of the case and the evidence to determine whether the verdict is logical and probable and thus consistent or whether it is perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence. Rule 408 of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence encourages candor during settlement discussions by expanding the common-law rule and rendering inadmissible evidence of conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations.
In Ebel, et al. v. Engelhart, et al. (Docket No.: 20240065), authored by Lisa K. Fair McEvers, the court emphasized that a contract requires an offer, acceptance of an offer, and mutual acceptance and understanding between the offeror and offeree as to the terms of the obligation. When an issue not raised by pleadings is tried by express or implied consent of parties, it must be treated as if raised in pleadings. Actual notice of a prior competing interest defeats a good-faith purchaser claim. To succeed on a claim for intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a contract existed; (2) it was breached; (3) the defendant instigated the breach; and (4) without justification. The test for proving justification involves assessing reasonable conduct under all circumstances.
In Gaddie v. State (Docket No.: 20240052), authored by Daniel John Crothers, to establish prosecutorial misconduct in post-conviction relief, an applicant must show that: (1) prosecutor’s actions constitute misconduct; and (2) this misconduct had a prejudicial effect. North Dakota Rule of Evidence 404(b) mandates exclusion of evidence regarding other acts independent of charged crimes unless they fit within exceptions provided by this rule. Prosecutors must give written notice if intending to introduce such evidence. Knowing introduction of prior bad act evidence without compliance with Rule 404(b)'s notice requirement constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. Admission of prior sexual misconduct evidence during prosecution for sex-related crimes poses unique prejudice potential.