The North Dakota Supreme Court released several new opinions on April 9, covering a range of civil and criminal appeals. The cases included decisions related to post-conviction relief, termination of parental rights, assault charges, protection orders, and contract disputes.
These rulings are significant as they clarify procedural standards for lower courts and litigants in the state. Several of the cases were summarily affirmed under North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.1, which allows for streamlined affirmance when certain legal criteria are met.
In Garcia v. State (2026 ND 77), the court affirmed the dismissal of an application for postconviction relief because it was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations. In Interest of D.G. (2026 ND 76), two separate dockets addressed juvenile court orders terminating parental rights; both were summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Barse (2026 ND 75) addressed credit for time served in custody on criminal charges. Justice Lisa K. Fair McEvers wrote that “A defendant must be awarded credit for time served in custody on that charge but is not entitled to credit for time served on wholly unrelated charges.” She added, “The defendant bears the burden of proving he is entitled to additional credit for time served in custody.”
Other notable decisions include Conica v. State (2026 ND 74) and Adams v. State (2026 ND 72), both involving denials of postconviction relief that were summarily affirmed by per curiam opinion; Gjovig et al. v New Century Ag (2026 ND 71) involved summary judgment in a contract dispute.
In State v Romanyshyn (2026 ND 73), Justice Douglas Alan Bahr wrote: “When a motion to dismiss presents a pure question of law, it is not necessary for the district court to make factual findings to support its decision.” He also stated: “Independent judicial research on a legal question does not implicate the judicial notice requirements of N.D.R.Ev. 201… Rule 201 is limited to judicial notice of adjudicative facts, not legal research.”
These opinions reinforce established appellate procedures and clarify points regarding summary affirmance and evidentiary standards in North Dakota courts.
