Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Robert Hoff appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. The district court found by clear and convincing evidence Hoff remained a sexually dangerous individual. Hoff argued the district court erred in determining that he had a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction, that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had difficulty controlling his behavior. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court made insufficient findings of fact on whether Hoff had difficulty controlling his behavior. View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

In early 2013, S.R.B.'s father filed a petition for his involuntary commitment. The petition alleged S.R.B. was mentally ill and there was a reasonable expectation of a serious risk of harm if left untreated. The petition alleged that S.R.B. called a nearby school looking for his daughter, wife, and lover, of which he had none. The petition also alleged S.R.B.'s neighbor saw S.R.B. "walking around his house this morning with nothing on but his underwear shorts." The father requested emergency treatment, noting S.R.B. was not taking his medication. S.R.B. appealed the trial court's order for hospitalization and treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for ninety days. The Supreme Court held the trial court's findings were insufficient to support the trial court's order, and remanded for expedited findings. On remand, the trial court entered additional findings and issued an amended order. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence that supported the order for hospitalization and treatment. View "Interest of S.R.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Lindsey Hysjulien appealed a grant of summary judgment which dismissed her claims for employment discrimination and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Hill Top Home of Comfort, Inc. and Greg Armitage. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. However, because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the running of the statutes of limitations for her state and federal employment discrimination claims and regarding her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court erred in granting summary judgment on these claims. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hysjulien v. Hill Top Home of Comfort" on Justia Law

Clinton Gardner appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for one year. Gardner argued that because he wasn't given the implied consent advisory for the request for chemical testing, his conduct could not be deemed a refusal. He also argued he consented to the test when he said "yeah, I'll take the test," but was never given the opportunity to take the test. The administrative officer found the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Gardner was in actual physical control of a vehicle, and had effectively refused the blood test by his conduct despite stating he would take the test. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the hearing officer's decision was supported by the weight of the evidence in the record, and was entitled to deference. View "Gardner v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Tim Clausnitzer appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his lawsuit against Tesoro Refinery and Marketing Company alleging lawful-activity discrimination under the North Dakota Human Rights Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 14-02.4. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Clausnitzer failed to make a prima facie showing that he was a member of a protected class under the Act when Tesoro terminated his employment.

Respondent-Appellant John Witzke appealed the district court's order granting a petition by Petitioner-Appellee Ania Gonzalez a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order against him. Witzke and Gonzalez were neighbors with "a long acrimonious history," which resulted in frequent litigation. Finding Gonzalez presented sufficient evidence to support the restraining order, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the order.

Plaintiff Bruce Roger Mills, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, appealed a judgment that dismissed his claims against the City of Grand Forks to recover the amount of fines and fees collected in the past for noncriminal traffic violations by the City exceeding the amount the City could legally impose under state law. The City cross-appealed that judgment. In 2004, a Grand Forks police officer cited Plaintiff with careless driving. Under Grand Forks City Code, the maximum fine for violation of a noncriminal offense was $1,000 "in the discretion of the court." Plaintiff pled not guilty and proceeded to trial in municipal court. Plaintiff was found guilty. The municipal court imposed against Plaintiff "a fine in the amount of $151 with $0 suspended" and a hearing fee of $15. Plaintiff appealed to district court for a new trial; the court affirmed the conviction and the fine and fees totaling $166. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, but on December 1, 2004, the Court dismissed the appeal because the district court judgment was "not appealable under N.D.C.C. 39-06.1-03(5)." On August 16, 2010, Plaintiff brought a "Class Action Complaint for Restitution" in state district court seeking the amount of monies paid to Grand Forks exceeding the state law limits for fines for similar state offenses. Plaintiff asserted the excess fines, fees and charges were "involuntary and void." The City argued Plaintiff's claims were precluded by both res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the prior federal court action, and by res judicata because Mills failed to challenge the City's fine scheme in the 2004 state court proceedings. Because the district court correctly ruled Plaintiff's claims were thus barred by res judicata, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.

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.

Petitioner-Appellant Spence Koenig appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for ninety-one days. Petitioner was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding and for expired tabs. Petitioner agreed to perform a field sobriety test and failed it. The trooper told Petitioner's girlfriend that Petitioner would be released when someone over eighteen years old came to pick Petitioner up. Petitioner argued he was denied an opportunity to obtain an independent sobriety test after he made sufficient arrangements for one because he was held in custody for over three hours with no attempt or offer to transport him to the hospital for the additional test. Petitioner asserted that "the responsibility of securing [his] right to an independent blood test became that of law enforcement holding him in custody[,]" when it became apparent his ride was not coming. Finding that the officers did not have a duty to transport Petitioner to the hospital to obtain the independent test, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision.

"J.T.N." appealed a district court order which found he remained a sexually dangerous individual and that denied his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. On appeal to the Supreme Court, J.T.N. argued the district court erred by denying his discharge petition because five of the six experts testified he was not a sexually dangerous individual. He did not contest the findings that he engaged in sexually predatory conduct and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. He argued the findings that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior were clearly erroneous. The State responded that the district court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finding that the district court did not apply an erroneous view of the law in determining J.T.N. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and J.T.N.'s continued commitment.