The North Dakota Supreme Court released new opinions on October 10, 2024, addressing various civil appeals.
In Curtis v. Curtis, et al., the court dismissed an appeal from a district court judgment due to untimeliness. The judgment was not tolled under N.D.R.App.P. 4(a)(3)(A)(vi) as a Rule 60, N.D.R.Civ.P., motion was not filed and served within the required 28 days after notice of entry of judgment.
Samaniego v. State involved post-conviction relief where the court ruled that a prosecutor's question to a law enforcement officer about interviewing the defendant did not infringe upon the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. Furthermore, it was noted that when considering motions for new trials based on alleged jury misconduct, courts are restricted from hearing juror testimonies or declarations except under specific exceptions outlined in N.D.R.Ev. 606(b).
In Guardianship and Conservatorship of K.H.P., the court clarified that unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, time limits do not affect jurisdiction over cases or administrative matters. The case also addressed issues regarding termination of guardianships, emphasizing that wards must establish a prima facie case to prove they are no longer incapacitated. The decision highlighted limitations on courts' authority regarding expert examiners in such proceedings.
Lastly, Kath v. Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co., et al., dealt with personal injury claims related to insurance contracts. The opinion stated that endorsements are integral parts of insurance contracts and take precedence over conflicting policy provisions.