New opinions: June 25, 2026

Interest of A.S.H. 2026 ND 123
Docket No.: 20260171
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court's denial of a motion to vacate an order finding Appellant in default is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Interest of A.T.E. 2026 ND 123
Docket No.: 20260172
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court's denial of a motion to vacate an order finding Appellant in default is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Interest of A.L. 2026 ND 123
Docket No.: 20260173
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court's denial of a motion to vacate an order finding Appellant in default is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Interest of A.L. 2026 ND 123
Docket No.: 20260174
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A juvenile court's denial of a motion to vacate an order finding Appellant in default is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Highlight: A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Highlight: Under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 2, the supreme court has authority to exercise original jurisdiction to issue, hear, and determine such original and remedial writs as may be necessary to properly exercise its jurisdiction. This authority is discretionary and cannot be invoked as a matter of right.

The supreme court will determine for itself, on an ad hoc basis, whether a particular case is within its discretionary original jurisdiction and invokes its original jurisdiction only in cases publici juris and those affecting the sovereignty of the state, its franchises and prerogatives, or the liberties of its people.

Courts adjudicate only actual controversies. An issue is not justiciable if it is moot or not ripe for review, a party lacks standing, or resolving it would be advisory.

Constitutional provisions are interpreted according to the same principles of statutory construction.

In adopting Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, the Legislative Assembly violated N.D. Const. art. XV, § 4, which limits its general authority to propose a constitutional amendment under N.D. Const. art. IV, § 16, to alter or repeal the term limitations established in N.D. Const. art. XV, § 1.

Hovey v. NDDOT 2026 ND 122
Docket No.: 20260082
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Friese, Mark A.

Highlight: The approved method for alcohol chemical testing requires a 20-minute wait after an invalidated test prior to a second test. The alcohol chemical testing process begins when the first step, the diagnostic test, is administered.

The hearing officer did not err in admitting the test record when the report timestamps and deputy's testimony both supported the determination the test was fairly administered.

Friesz v. State 2026 ND 124
Docket No.: 20260095
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment dismissing an application for postconviction relief on summary disposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

Highlight: The statutory appeal procedures in N.D.C.C. §§ 11-33-12 and 28-34-01 provide the exclusive means of judicial review for challenges to county zoning decisions. A party may not circumvent those procedures by bringing a separate action for declaratory or injunctive relief alleging procedural defects, public-comment violations, or conflicts of interest when those claims ultimately challenge the validity of the zoning decision itself.

Highlight: A district court has broad discretion in making contempt decisions, and this Court reverses a contempt finding only for an abuse of discretion. Contempt includes the willful and inexcusable intent to disobey a court order.

After a finding of contempt, the choice of remedial sanctions rests within the district court's discretion. A compensable loss cannot rest on speculation, but it need not reach mathematical precision, and a sanction stands when it has a factual basis and falls within the range of the evidence.

Only an order finally determining the parties' rights qualifies as appealable. An order leaving a motion pending for further proceedings is not an appealable order.

Highlight: A district court's order and judgment denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Boynton 2026 ND 120
Docket No.: 20260010
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Hindering Law Enforcement
Author: Friese, Mark A.

Highlight: A district court must ascertain a factual basis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3) prior to accepting a guilty plea. The factual basis must provide facts to support all elements of the charged offense.

A district court's failure to ascertain a factual basis as required by N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(3) constitutes an obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

Sanchez v. State 2026 ND 128
Docket No.: 20260022
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: The denial of an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Rangeloff 2026 ND 117
Docket No.: 20250453
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Child Abuse/Child Neglect
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for child neglect is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Moos v. WSI 2026 ND 119
Docket No.: 20250437
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Section 65-01-09, N.D.C.C., authorizes subrogation interests to Workforce Safety and Insurance when an injured employee recovers damages from a third party. In administrative workers' compensation proceedings, N.D.C.C. § 65-01-09 replaces the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel.

Section 28-32-44(3), N.D.C.C., allows a district court to waive record preparation and filing costs for an appellant upon submission of an application showing the appellant is a "low-income person." A district court does not abuse its discretion in ordering an appellant to pay record costs when an appellant fails to submit a complete application for waiver of costs.

Highlight: A case is moot when the occurrence of an event or the lapse of time has made it so there is no actual controversy and no effective relief a court to provide. Courts will determine a moot issue rather than dismiss an appeal if the controversy is one of great public interest. The public interest exception to mootness may apply when a claim involves a law facilitating scrupulous handling of government affairs. The public interest exception does not extend to issues that are particular to a specific locality. A dispute, although local, may affect the public interest when it implicates the scope of authority of public officials across the state.

The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 32-23, authorizes courts to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. The Act was adopted with the intent of providing a means for litigants to have controversies determined by a court in advance of any invasion of rights or breach of obligation. The declaratory judgment statutes do not displace ordinary jurisdictional requirements. Future action contemplated by a municipality, although not yet taken, may constitute a threat of injury providing standing to seek declaratory relief.

State v. Pope 2026 ND 116
Docket No.: 20250416
Filing Date: 6/25/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: The factual assertions in an affidavit of probable cause filed in a joined case whose charges were dismissed with prejudice are not an impermissible sentencing factor.

A sentencing court is allowed the widest possible range of information and may consider unproven and even inadmissible evidence, the evidence of record, and the reasonable inferences that evidence supports. State v. Wells, 265 N.W.2d 239, 242-43 (N.D. 1978); State v. Hamilton, 2023 ND 233, ¶ 11, 999 N.W.2d 214; N.D.R.Ev. 1101(d)(3)(D)-(E).

Although a pending criminal charge is an impermissible sentencing factor because relying on it penalizes the defendant for exercising the constitutional right to trial, dismissal with prejudice removes that concern because the charge will never be tried. State v. Hoverson, 2006 ND 49, ¶¶ 35, 37, 710 N.W.2d 890.