Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Valerie Joy Tronnes appealed a judgment that affirmed the Job Service of North Dakota's decision to deny her claim for unemployment benefits. In 2002, Appellant began working part-time at the Wal-Mart Vision Center. In 2010, Appellant received her paycheck (via a debit-card style card), and purchased a few items at Wal-Mart's customer service center. The amount of the purchase was mistakenly credited to Appellant's account by a different employee rather than deducted, which resulted in a substantial benefit to Appellant. Appellant met with the vision center manager about the extra money on her card, but later testified she believed the amount to be correct. The store gave Appellant the option of resigning as a result of her spending the extra money, but believed the paid time off she was given ( a "D-day"-- so named to give Appellant a day to decide whether to remain employed at Wal-Mart) meant she would be fired soon. Store management negotiated a payment plan for Appellant to repay the amount she was credited and allowed her to return to work. Ultimately the "repayment plan" took the form of the store withholding Appellant's subsequent paychecks to cover the indebtedness. Appellant did not report to work after that payday, and subsequently filed for unemployment benefits. The Job Service determined Appellant was ineligible for benefits because she voluntarily quit her job. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence in the record supported the Job Service's denial of benefits to Appellant.

The Industrial Commission and Slawson Exploration Company appealed a district court judgment that reversed the Commission's assessment of a risk penalty against Gadeco, LLC. The issue in this case arose from a challenge to the validity of an invitation to participate in the cost of drilling a well which resulted in the Commission's assessment of a 200 percent risk penalty. Because the Supreme Court was unable to discern the basis for the Commission's decision, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case back to the Commission for the preparation of findings that explain the reasons for its decision.

K.H. appealed juvenile court order that extended the placement of his daughter T.H. in the custody and control of Barnes County Social Services and an order that denied his motion to dismiss. On appeal, K.H. argued the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction, applied the wrong standard of proof in finding the child was deprived in 2008, erred in allowing his plea to the allegations of deprivation, the duration of the deprivation proceedings was excessive, and in finding the child continues to be deprived. Finding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed.

Plaintiff-Appellant Bethany Johnson appealed an amended judgment that modified a California divorce judgment regarding custody of three children and awarded Defendant-Appellee Keith Johnson primary residential responsibility of the parties' seven children. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's appeal, holding that she forfeited and abandoned her appeal by disregarding the district court's order and judgment.

Appellant Edith Johnson appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order dismissing her claim for benefits from Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI). On appeal, Appellant argued the ALJ improperly set aside the parties' stipulated specification of issues and abused its discretion by dismissing her claim for benefits as a sanction for failing to comply with discovery. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed: the ALJ dismissed the action as a sanction after Appellant refused to comply with WSI's discovery request and the ALJ's decision granting WSI's motion to compel discovery. In deciding to dismiss Appellant's claim, the ALJ noted Appellant did not offer a defense for failing to comply with discovery and made it clear that she would rather have the matter dismissed than comply with discovery. The ALJ found Appellant almost invited dismissal by failing to respond to WSI's motion for sanctions, moving to reconsider the order granting WSI's motion to compel, and submitting two proposed orders with one granting the motion to reconsider and the other granting WSI's motion to dismiss. "While the ALJ should not be guided solely by the parties' requests and must exercise its own judgment in determining an appropriate sanction, under the facts of this case [the Court] conclude[d] the ALJ did not abuse its discretion in dismissing [Appellant's] claim."

Plaintiff-Appellant Kara Lynn Langowski appeals from a summary judgment dismissing with prejudice her negligence action against Defendant-Appellee Charlene Altendorf. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged Defendant struck her with a vehicle while she attempted to cross a street in Minto, North Dakota in 2004, causing her bodily injury. In 2010, Plaintiff sent the summons and complaint to "Roughrider Legal Support Services," a private process server, instructing it to serve both documents upon Defendant on or before August 21, 2010. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding Plaintiff did not begin her negligence action against Defendant within the six-year statute of limitations by delivering the summons and complaint to Defendant within that time.

Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Osaba appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the administrative revocation of his driving privileges for one year following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded testimony was properly admitted to establish probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, and affirmed the district court's decision.

Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Seibold appealed a district court order that denied her motions for a second amended judgment and to hold Defendant-Appellee Paul Leverington in contempt and denied her request for a hearing on her motions. Seibold and Leverington have one child together. In 2006, a judgment was entered finding Leverington is the child's natural father, awarded Seibold sole legal and physical custody of the child, and awarded Leverington visitation. In 2009, Leverington moved to modify custody. After a hearing, the district court entered an order finding there was a material change in circumstances and it was in the child's best interests to modify custody. The court awarded Leverington sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded Seibold visitation. The court also addressed the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and ordered that both parents have certain rights and duties related to the child, including the right to access and obtain copies of certain records related to the child and the right to contact the child by phone. An amended judgment was entered in September 2009. In 2011, Seibold moved for a second amended judgment, but the district court denied her motions without holding a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in denying Seibold's motions without providing her with sufficient time to schedule a hearing. The Court reversed the court's order and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellant Wade Baesler appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Because the Department failed to transmit a record compiled in the administrative proceedings, there was no evidence to support the Department's exercise of jurisdiction to suspend his license. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant-Appellant Deborah Reichman appealed a judgment that granted Plaintiff-Appellee McKenzie County a prescriptive easement for a road that crosses her land in McKenzie County and dismissed her counterclaim for inverse condemnation. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred in granting a prescriptive easement for the road because the court failed to correctly calculate the 20-year period for a prescriptive easement backward from when McKenzie County began the lawsuit in 2006. She argued the County did not clearly and convincingly establish adverse use during that period because the adjacent landowners, including her predecessors in interest, blocked the road for their ranching operations and any public use of the road was not continuous and uninterrupted. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err and affirmed its decisions on the issues Defendant raised on appeal.