New opinions: May 7, 2026

Highlight: North Dakota Century Code § 47-06-10 applies when a stream, "in forming itself a new arm divides itself and surrounds land" belonging to the owner of the shore. The statute provides no other condition.

North Dakota Century Code § 47-06-06 applies when land is carried away "to the opposite bank or to another part of the same bank," and it permits the land that was carried away to be reclaimed from "the owner of the land to which it has been united." It does not apply when land is not united with a bank.

Ownership of a government lot adjacent to navigable water does not extend beyond the water.

The doctrine of laches is limited when the government acts to protect the public's interest.

Highlight: When considering whether a failure to disclose information covered by North Dakota's journalist shield statute should be disclosed to prevent a miscarriage of justice, a district court does not abuse its discretion by ordering an in camera review of the information before determining whether a miscarriage of justice will occur, and can apply the balancing test set out in Grand Forks Herald v. District Court in and for Grand Forks County, 322 N.W.2d 850 (N.D. 1982), after conducting the in camera review and before ordering the disclosure of any
information.

Before ordering an in camera review of privileged or confidential information sought by a defendant in a criminal case, the district court should determine whether the "particularized showing" required by Ritchie v. Pennsylvania, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), has been met.

Highlight: Probable cause is not an element of a test refusal offense under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. The existence of probable cause to arrest is a question of law subject to challenge in a pre-trial motion to suppress, rather than an issue of fact for a jury to decide.

In a case involving a test refusal offense, a defendant's refusal to submit to a preliminary breath test is admissible in evidence pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(3), when the defendant was arrested for a violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 or an equivalent municipal ordinance, and did not take any additional tests requested by a law enforcement officer.

Interest of Hoff 2026 ND 96
Docket No.: 20250456
Filing Date: 5/7/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's order continuing commitment of a sexually dangerous individual is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Highlight: If a DUI arrestee, upon being asked to submit to a chemical test, affirmatively asks or expresses a need to consult an attorney, failure to allow a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney is not an affirmative refusal.

An arrestee's conversational reference to an attorney without expressing a need to consult counsel is not an affirmative request and does not require a custodial officer to provide the arrestee an opportunity to consult with counsel.

Highlight: A district court judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8). Double costs and fees are awarded.

Highlight: A North Dakota district court has inherent equitable authority, preserved by the state constitution and statutes, to enjoin a person subject to its personal jurisdiction from prosecuting a duplicative or collateral proceeding in a foreign forum.

A court considering an antisuit injunction applies a three-step framework: (1) whether the parties and issues in the parallel actions are substantially similar; (2) whether equitable considerations—frustration of forum policy, vexatiousness, threats to the issuing court's jurisdiction, or other prejudice—favor an injunction; and (3) whether principles of international comity weigh against issuance. The substantial-similarity inquiry requires comparison of the elements the foreign
claim requires, not the labels parties or legislatures attach to it. International comity is a substantial factor weighing against issuance, but not a categorical bar.

The district court abused its discretion in denying an antisuit injunction by misapplying that framework—comparing only the labels of the foreign and domestic claims rather than the elements they require, and treating comity as inapplicable. Supervisory writ granted and remanded with directions to enter a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction.

Highlight: Whether an oral contract exists, the extent of its terms, and whether a party substantially performed are questions of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.

Whether a conversion has been committed is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, and the claimant bears the burden of proving conversion by a preponderance of the evidence.

Damages must be proved to a reasonable degree of certainty, and the mere assertion that damages exist is insufficient without a factual basis from which the fact finder can determine their amount.

Baumgartner v. NDDOT 2026 ND 91
Docket No.: 20260005
Filing Date: 5/7/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming a hearing officer's decision revoking driving privileges for 180 days is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).