State v. Romanyshyn 2026 ND 62
Docket No.: 20250295
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., addresses conditional guilty pleas and requires: (1) the defendant, any defendant's attorney, and the prosecuting attorney consent in writing to the conditional plea; (2) the court accept the conditional plea and enter an order; and (3) the judgment specify the plea is conditional.

Temporary remand is warranted for the district court to correct the judgment to conform with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).

Highlight: A district court judgment awarding an earnest money deposit to the seller and dismissing the buyers' counterclaims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion is affirmed.

Several contracts relating to the same matters between the same parties and made as parts of substantially one transaction are to be taken together. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-07.

When part of a contract is drafted under the special directions of the parties and the remainder is copied from a standard form, the specially drafted part controls over the standard form language; if the two are absolutely repugnant, the form language must be disregarded. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-16.

When a contract contains conflicting provisions, the resulting uncertainty is construed against the party who drafted the contract. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-19.

The later-in-time principle, under which inconsistent provisions in a later contract supersede those in an earlier contract, does not apply where the earlier agreement is expressly incorporated into the later one. An argument that a party breached the obligation of good faith during contractfor-deed negotiations does not affect the disposition of earnest money that had already become non-refundable before the allegedly objectionable conduct occurred.

Highlight: Judgments amending parenting time and payment of child's medical expenses, and finding abusive litigation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2)

Highlight: A losing party cannot, after a civil jury trial, raise the issues of sufficiency of the evidence or weight of the evidence for the first time on appeal.

Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole to determine if they fairly and adequately advise the jury of the law.

Inadequately briefed issues are not reviewed on appeal. Judges, whether trial or appellate, are not ferrets obligated to engage in unassisted searches of the record for evidence to support a litigant's position.

The district court has sole discretion under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-06(5), to award expert witness fees that are reasonable plus actual expenses.

Highlight: A district court's divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).

Highlight: When exercising their discretion to impose sanctions, courts should consider the impact of the imposed sanction on innocent third parties.

While district courts retain broad authority to sanction discovery violations, that authority is necessarily constrained by the overriding obligation to consider all relevant evidence bearing on the child's best interests.

When a court imposes sanctions in a case involving residential responsibility and parenting time, the court must consider whether the sanction precludes the court from receiving evidence bearing on the child's best interests.

Under the facts of this case, the court abused its discretion by imposing an evidentiary sanction that barred a parent from presenting any evidence at a trial involving residential responsibility and parenting time.

Highlight: District court did not clearly err in finding there was a material change in circumstances justifying modification of parenting time where parent with residential responsibility interfered with parenting time and was unwilling to accommodate reasonable exchange plans, the children and noncustodial parent desired to spend more time together, and the judgment contained uncertain exchange times, which caused conflict for the parties.

Under N.D.R.Ct. 8.13(a), the district court may conduct an in chambers interview of a child in a parenting time proceeding only if the parents consent.

Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.3 and N.D.R.Ct. 8.6, the parenting investigator must file and serve her report before the evidentiary hearing, and must be available to testify at the hearing. A court abuses its discretion when it relies on the parenting investigator's report without having first provided the parties notice and an opportunity to cross-examine the parenting investigator on her report at the hearing.

Highlight: An appeal from a district court judgment is dismissed because the appeal was untimely. The court's amended judgment inserting the amount of costs awarded in the judgment did not toll the time to appeal.

Highlight: The district court's amended criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

Highlight: A two-pronged test is used when determining whether an order is appealable. First, the order appealed from must meet one of the statutory criteria of appealability set forth in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. If it does not, our inquiry need go no further and the appeal must be dismissed. If it does, then Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., if applicable, must be complied with.

An "automatic stay" under N.D.C.C. § 51-07-01.1(3) is appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3).

The authority to issue a supervisory writ is discretionary and we decide whether to exercise our supervisory jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis.

Mohammed v. State 2026 ND 59
Docket No.: 20250331
Filing Date: 2/26/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: When a court summarily dismisses an application before the State responds, the dismissal is treated as analogous to dismissal of a civil complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

District courts may consider applications for postconviction relief discovered beyond the two-year statutory limitation if the petitioner alleges the existence of newly discovered evidence which would establish the petitioner did not engage
in the conduct for which petitioner was convicted.

When applications for postconviction relief assert newly discovered evidence under the exception to the statute of limitations, district courts must apply the four-prong test to determine if the evidence constitutes newly discovered evidence.

Highlight: The lack of a remedy for a statutory violation does not, in and of itself, render a statute ambiguous. Instead, it signals an intent by the legislature for the courts to apply a prejudice standard to a statutory violation.

Highlight: The district court's judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).

When requesting more than token attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38, the prevailing party should submit documentation of the expenses incurred on the appeal. Without such documentation, the Court may consider awarding a fixed
amount.

Highlight: An admission of nonpayment of some, if not all, claimed obligations owed under a judgment can be enough to support a contempt finding. Remedial sanctions for contempt cannot be broader than necessary to address the specific contemptuous conduct, that is, the sanctions must be compensation for actual losses caused by the contempt or have a nexus to either compelling future compliance.