The North Dakota Supreme Court released several opinions on April 10, 2025, addressing a range of civil and criminal appeals.
In the case of K.L.T., et al. v. NDDHHS, the court declined to answer a certified question regarding the eligibility of unmarried couples to adopt children under North Dakota Century Code § 14-15-03(2). “Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the Court to answer questions of law certified by a state district court when two conditions are met," outlined the court, noting that the conditions were not met in this case due to the district court's conclusion of proceedings by dismissing the complaint.
State v. Allman involved an appeal in a criminal case of terrorizing. Here, the court emphasized that “under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded," highlighting the court's focus on the fairness of the trial process.
In WSI v. Jones, et al., a case involving workers' compensation, the court clarified that Title 65, N.D.C.C., does not specify appellate jurisdiction for administrative decisions. Appeals can be made to the district court of either the county where a hearing was held or Burleigh County if no formal hearing occurred.
The court addressed a conditional guilty plea issue in State v. Ali, where it found that the absence of a clear record showing a conditional plea made it impossible to discern the conditional nature of the guilty plea.
Concerning Bauer v. Job Service, et al., the court upheld a district court's decision affirming a Job Service of North Dakota decision, applying N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).
In State v. Krebs, the State's appeal of a judgment of acquittal was dismissed. The court noted that its authority to issue supervisory writs is exercised only “in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative exists.”
State v. Lyons involved an appeal regarding a criminal sexual offense, with a court order denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence being summarily affirmed.
In the divorce case of Shively v. Shively, the court reversed and remanded the district court's judgment. It emphasized the importance of providing a reasoned explanation for decisions regarding residential responsibility and parenting time.
Finally, in Kinden v. Kinden, et al., the appellate court upheld the district court's decision on primary residential responsibility. The court emphasized its deference to district courts, particularly in complex residential responsibility decisions.