On November 21, 2024, several opinions were issued by the court concerning various legal matters ranging from judicial conduct to criminal and civil appeals.
In "Judicial Conduct Commission v. Hagen," a judge received an admonishment as part of disciplinary proceedings.
The case "Chase v. State" saw the district court's denial of an amended application for postconviction relief affirmed. The court noted that the state's failure to raise certain defenses in its answer led to their waiver. It was also highlighted that establishing improper jury contact requires proof of occurrence.
"Sanchez v. State" resulted in a summary affirmation of the district court's judgment denying postconviction relief under specific procedural rules.
In "RMM Properties v. City of Minot," the court emphasized its limited review role in zoning appeals, stressing that decisions should be affirmed unless proven arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
"Northstar Center v. Lukenbill Family Partnership" involved a breach of contract claim where it was noted that summary judgments should not resolve factual disputes. Elements required for proving intentional interference with a contract were also discussed.
The homicide appeal "State v. Villazana" involved a detailed analysis under evidence rules for admitting prior acts and focused on whether errors affected substantial rights or outcomes during trial.
In "State v. Ford," issues surrounding ineffective assistance claims were addressed, noting that inadequate records on direct appeal could lead to further proceedings for clarification.
"Bott v. Bott" dealt with property distribution in divorce cases, emphasizing conditions under which modifications can occur and reviewing if there was any abuse of discretion by the district court.
Lastly, two cases involving quiet title actions—"Nelson et al. v. Persons Unknown et al." and "Nelson et al. v. Lindvig et al."—were reviewed under standards for maintaining such actions and claiming attorney's fees deemed frivolous.