The North Dakota Supreme Court issued several new opinions on February 19, 2026, covering a range of civil and criminal cases.
In Nygaard v. Volker, the court affirmed a default judgment entered after the district court dismissed an answer and counterclaim as a discovery sanction. The opinion stated: “A default judgment entered after the district court dismissed the answer and counterclaim as a discovery sanction is affirmed. When a party fails to properly raise an issue or argument before the district court, it may not do so for the first time on appeal. Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., is the exclusive means for opening a default judgment. When a default judgment is appealed, rather than a district court’s order regarding a N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the default judgment, we review the default judgment to determine if irregularities appear on the face of the judgment.”
In Klebe v. Klebe, addressing child support matters, the court held that: “A district court may determine a child support obligation based on earning capacity rather than earnings history.” It also clarified procedural rules for changing judges: “The presiding judge of the judicial district, not the judge sought to be disqualified, determines the validity and timeliness of a demand for change of judge under N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21. However, when a demand for change of judge is untimely filed under N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21(2), the error in having the wrong judge rule on the demand is harmless under N.D.R.Civ.P. 61.”
State v. Davis involved an appeal in a homicide case where evidence from prior convictions was at issue. The decision noted: “The Court will not consider an argument under obvious error review unless the appellant briefs the issue under the obvious error standard of review.” It added: “The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior conviction that was an element of the charged offense.”
In Christianson v. Grand Forks Public School District, concerning contractual disputes with educators, it was determined that: “A party’s failure to comply with contractual requirements can waive their ability to enforce those requirements.” The opinion further explained distinctions between regular teaching contracts and extracurricular work: “A teacher’s separate contract for work performed outside the regular school day, that provides separate pay and different responsibilities from their teaching contract duties, is extracurricular.”
Regarding adoption law in Adoption of K.J.K., standards were clarified about appellate review in such cases: “A district court’s findings in adoption cases are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” The decision continued: “A district court’s denial of an adoption petition is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Citing specific concerns with this adoption attempt, it said: ‘The district court found “red flags” surrounded the adoption, and finding adoption was not in K.J.K.’s best interest was not clearly erroneous.’ It concluded: “The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the adoption petition.”
State v. Medina addressed search and seizure protections related to drug investigations: “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It described when warrantless searches are allowed through exceptions such as automobiles when probable cause exists.
Several cases concerned termination of parental rights (Interest of M.S.H., Interest of P.S.H., Interest of W.J.), where procedural rules about timely appeals were highlighted as critical to challenging such orders.
These decisions reflect ongoing clarifications by North Dakota’s highest court regarding procedure and substantive law across property disputes, family law issues including child support and parental rights termination proceedings, criminal law standards relating to evidence admission and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
