Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Bryen Birkholz appealed a judgment ordering him to forfeit $44,140 in currency seized during a search of his residence and an order denying his motion for a new trial. In August 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for Birkholz's residence and found eleven growing marijuana plants, a hydration system for the plants, three bags containing various amounts of marijuana, several empty bags, drug paraphernalia, and $44,140 in currency in a safe in a desk near the marijuana. In May 2011, Birkholz pled guilty to manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Birkholz argued the district court erred in applying the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to currency he claimed was seized under the authority of N.D.C.C. 29-31.1-03. He also claimed there was insufficient evidence of a transaction to justify a forfeiture of the currency under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3(1)(d) and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Birkholz did not raise an issue in the district court about the applicability of the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to this case and could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also concluded the court's findings supporting forfeiture were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Birkholz's motion for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. $44,140 U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

Strata Corporation and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim against United Crane & Excavation, Inc., after the district court certified the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Because this case did not represent the "infrequent harsh case for immediate appeal and subsequent proceedings in the district court may moot the issue raised on appeal," the district court improvidently certified the partial summary judgment as final and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "City of Mandan v. Strata Corp." on Justia Law

Robert Heier appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") decision affirming the termination of his employment with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding Heier was unlawfully disciplined multiple times for one instance of misconduct, and the Court ordered Heier reinstated with backpay. View "Heier v. N.D. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. " on Justia Law

James Mickelson appealed a judgment affirming a Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") decision denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits. He argued WSI erred in deciding he did not suffer a compensable injury. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded WSI misapplied the definition of a compensable injury, and the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mickelson v. Workforce Safety & Ins." on Justia Law

J.A. appealed a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to his daughter, A.W. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the court's findings that J.A. abandoned the child, that the child was deprived, and that the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not clearly erroneous.

Cornel Kilber appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Grand Forks Public School District No. 1 ("District") decision to discharge him from his teaching position with the District for conduct unbecoming the position of a teacher. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kilber was not denied a fair discharge hearing and that any claimed procedural errors that occurred during the hearing were harmless.

John Miller and J.D. Miller Farming Association (collectively "Miller") appealed an order that affirmed the Walsh County Water Resource District's decision requiring Miller to remove unpermitted dikes from his property located in Forest River Township. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Miller failed to establish that the District acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably, that there was not substantial evidence to support its decision, or that the District was estopped from requiring removal of the dikes.

D&P Terminal, Inc., and Potter Enterprises appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the Board of City Commissioners of Fargo in approving special assessments against their property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Fargo Special Assessment Commission did not use an inappropriate method to calculate the benefits to property included in the improvement district.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Meier appealed a judgment dismissing his appeal from an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ affirmed a decision by the Department of Human Services to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Plaintiff did not properly perfect his appeal because he failed to serve the notice of appeal and specifications of error on Human Resource Management Services.

In 2011, the City of Johnston charged Appellant Matthew Johnston with driving under the influence after police arrested him for driving his bicycle into a parked vehicle. Appellant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing a bicycle (moved under human power) is not a "vehicle" under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01. The district court denied Appellant's motion, and after a hearing to reconsider the motion, the court again denied it. Appellant conditionally pled guilty to the charge, reserving his right to have this Court review whether a bicycle is considered a "vehicle" for the purposes of driving under the influence. The City of Lincoln responded that the legislature intended a bicycle to be considered a "vehicle" under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01 because N.D.C.C. 39-07-01 provides: "For the purposes of chapters 39-08 through 39-13, a bicycle or a ridden animal must be deemed a vehicle." The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction.