home > opinions > predefined summary search > general search results
| Case Name Case Number Judge |
Nature of Suit Summary |
|---|---|
| Wesley Twombly, et al. v. City of Fargo A3-02-137 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 9/29/2005 |
440 Other Civil Rights Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaration that a Ten Commandments monument located on city property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Based on the recent Supreme Court case of Van Orden and the recent Eighth Circuit case of Plattsmouth, the Court finds that this Ten Commandments monument does not violate the Establishment Clause. |
| USA v. Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr. C2-04-55 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 9/27/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant filed several motions to strike several aggravating factors in the government’s Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death. The Court did not strike the aggravating factor that alleged that Defendant caused the death of another person during a kidnapping because it did not duplicate an element of the crime and it would allow a jury to consider the circumstances of the crime. The Court did not strike the aggravating factor related to Defendant’s conviction in Polk County case #6912 because the Minnesota courts upheld the conviction when the same arguments were presented to them. The Court did not strike the aggravating factors related to Defendant’s convictions in Polk County case ## 5447 and 5438 because a fact question exists as to whether serious bodily injury was involved in those cases. The Court found that the “future dangerousness” aggravating factor was constitutional. |
| USA v. Rodriguez C2-04-55 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 7/29/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA) does not violate the Constitution even considering the recent ruling in Booker. The “relaxed” evidentiary standard of 18 U.S.C. § 3593(c) does not violate the Constitution. The Court ordered the government to provide more specific information regarding the allegations in the death penalty notice. The Court also ordered the government to provide the defense with grand jury transcripts. |
| Centre Insurance Company v. Jeffrey Blake, et al. A2-04-55 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 5/2/2005 |
110 Insurance Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that it does not have to provide coverage under a homeowners policy for injuries sustained by a minor visiting the rental property. According to the plain language of the homeowners policy, the insured must reside at the insured premises at the time of the loss. Since the terms in the policy are unambiguous and Defendant Blake no longer resided at the insured premises at the time of the minor’s injuries, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. |
| USA v. Karin I. Condon C3-05-05 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 4/25/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The government moved for a substantial assistance departure under USSG § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). The Court imposed a sentence that reflected the level of her assistance. |
| USA v. Lorman James Owlboy, Sr. C2-04-183 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 4/21/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant moved to suppress statements that were not electronically recorded, and which Defendant argues were not voluntary but instead executed according to a “deal” with law enforcement officers. Because there is no federal right to have custodial interrogations electronically recorded, Defendant’s motion to suppress statements on the basis that his due process rights were violated is denied. In addition, after considering the testimony of two law enforcement officers and Defendant, the Court finds the law enforcement officers’ version concerning the manner in which the statements were obtained more credible and that the interview and subsequent statements by Defendant were voluntary and therefore are admissible. Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. |
| Ronald Riemers v. Super Target of GF A2-04-106 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 3/8/2005 |
440 Other Civil Rights The defendant, Super Target of Grand Forks, moves for summary judgment on a claim that it allegedly violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by prohibiting him from petitioning customers on its property. This Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to exercise his federal First Amendment rights nor his state free expression rights on the defendant’s private property. Therefore the Court grants the defendant summary judgment as to all federal and state claims. |
| USA v. Neil Grey Water C2-04-145 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 3/3/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The United States’ filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Court maintains that handcuffs present a restraint on freedom of movement, and telling an individual that he is not under arrest does not carry the same weight in determining custody when the suspect is in handcuffs as it does when he is unrestrained. Because Defendant was restrained in a manner consistent with a formal arrest, the Court finds Defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda. The United States’ motion for reconsideration and to vacate the Court’s earlier order is denied. |
| USA v. Adrian Morin C3-03-90-12 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 3/2/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support many of the proposed sentence enhancements under the guidelines. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support most of the enhancements. The Court also gave consideration to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 and issued a sentence slightly lower than would be dictated by the Sentencing Guidelines alone. |
| Dean Symington v. Daisy Mfg Company A2-02-140 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 2/23/2005 |
365 Personal Injury - Product Liability Defendant moved to exclude Plaintiff’s expert witness arguing that his opinion was not reliable. The Court performed the Daubert analysis and found that Plaintiff’s expert was qualified to give the stated opinions, and his opinions were reliable. Defendant also moved for summary judgment by arguing that the shooter’s intentional act was a superseding, intervening cause of Plaintiff’s injuries which would relieve Defendant of any liability. Since North Dakota law requires the fact finder to compare intentional fault with all other kinds of fault, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. |
| USA v. Brian Wendling C2-03-105-03 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 2/16/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used The Plaintiff, the United States of America moves for summary judgment in this criminal forfeiture ancillary proceeding, seeking title to certain real property located in Grant County, Minnesota, where property was jointly owned by the defendant and his mother, Petitioner. Petitioner asked this Court to adjudicate her interest in the property. The Court finds that neither the United States nor the Petitioner has presented evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that joint tenants of real property have an equal interest in such property. Accordingly, this Court grants the Plaintiff a fifty percent share of the property. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. |
| Soo Line RR Co v. Enderlin Farmers Elevator A3-03-112 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 2/8/2005 |
190 Other Contract Plaintiff Railroad moved for summary judgment pursuant to an indemnity agreement between it and Defendant Elevator. One of Plaintiff’s employees was injured while crossing Defendant’s spur track. The agreement requires Defendant to indemnify Plaintiff for any act or omission that causes injury to Plaintiff’s employees. While the agreement does not require Plaintiff to prove negligence in order to be compensated, it still requires Plaintiff to prove that an act or omission caused the injury. Since there was conflicting testimony about the accident, the Court could not find as a matter of law that an act or omission of the Defendant caused the employee’s injury. |
| USA v. Neil Grey Water C2-04-145 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 1/31/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress statements obtained by law enforcement officers prior to Miranda warnings, and a motion to dismiss on the basis that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional because it deprives him of his property without due process. The Court granted the motion to suppress, finding even though the officers told Defendant he was not under arrest and he did not have to speak to the officers, Defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he was handcuffed, directed to sit in a chair in his kitchen, and was not told he was free to leave or that he could ask the officers to leave. The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding no constitutional violation in the United States’ seizure or retention of the firearm pending trial. |
| USA v. Loren Michael Longie C2-04-149 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 1/31/2005 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized outside the scope of the search warrant, and because the search warrant was not issued in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a). The Court found the search warrant specifically described the house and authorized a search of only the house; therefore, under the terms of the warrant, a search of the shed exceeded the scope of the warrant. Consequently, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress. |
| USA v. Racing Services, Inc. C3_03_112 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 12/22/2004 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss the indictment, which included a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1955. Defendants alleged that they were only engaged in account wagering. However, even if they only were engaged in account wagering, North Dakota law still requires the involvement of a charity. Since the Court had no evidence that a charity was involved in any of the gambling transactions, it denied the renewed motion to dismiss. |
| USA v. Racing Services, Inc. C3-03-112 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 12/2/2004 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendants sought dismissal of the indictment that alleged, among other things, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955, which prohibits operation of an illegal gambling business. Whether a company constitutes an illegal gambling business requires an analysis of a state’s gambling laws. In North Dakota, gambling is not illegal when conducted through a charity. North Dakota also permits the licensed simulcast service provider to handle all account wagers. Since the Court had no evidence on what type of gambling was involved or whether a charity was involved, it denied the motion to dismiss. |
| R.D. Offutt v. Lexington Ins. Co. A3-04-79 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 10/27/2004 |
110 Insurance This action arises out of a commercial insurance policy issued by the Defendant in North Dakota and covering property located in eight states. The Defendant filed a motion for a change of venue from North Dakota to Oregon. The basis for the Defendant’s motion was that the insured property was located in Oregon and a majority of the witnesses resided in Oregon. The Court denied the motion, finding that the threshold issue was the interpretation of the insurance policy and neither the convenience of the witnesses nor the interests of justice warranted a change of venue. |
| Loegering Mfg v. Grouser Products A3-02-08 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 8/6/2004 |
830 Patent An alleged patent infringer brought a declaratory judgment action to declare the patent invalid. In this summary judgment motion, Plaintiff alleges that the holder of the patent did not invent the product and that the patentee placed the invention on sale more than one year prior to applying for a patent. Fact questions on both of these issues precluded summary judgment. Defendants brought a summary judgment motion on the trademark claim, but fact questions also precluded granting summary judgment on that issue. Finally, Plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss Defendant Grouser as a party, alleging that it was not an exclusive licensee. The Court determined that Grouser was an exclusive licensee to the extent that it had standing to pursue a counterclaim as a co-party with Defendant Hoffart, the patentee. |
| Rachel Ambers v. Village Family Service Center A2-03-04 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 7/8/2004 |
442 Employment Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer only alleging claims of retaliation under the ADEA and the NDHRA. Since she had not engaged in any protected activity, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. |
| Hoggarths v. Security State Bank of Fargo A3-03-136 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 4/22/2004 |
422 Appeal 28 USC 158 In order to claim a homestead exemption, the parties living on the property must have some type of ownership interest in that property. In this case, the property at issue was owned by a partnership and the parties were tenants. Since they did not have any type of ownership interest, they could not claim the property as their homestead for purposes of voiding a mortgage. |
| Jeffrey McClean v. Case Corp. A3-02-134 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 4/20/2004 |
442 Employment An employer is not liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to provide reasonable accommodation when it interacts in good faith with the employee to determine whether reasonable accommodations are available. In this case, the employer acted in good faith in the interactive process by reviewing the employee’s capabilities assessment and discussing his condition with his physicians. |
| Janet Nelson v. Wahpeton Public School A3-02-112 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 3/29/2004 |
442 Employment An employee of the Wahpeton Public School District alleged that her supervisor had touched her breast, rubbed her back, rubbed up against her, slapped her on the buttocks, directed sexual comments toward her, ogled her, and unlocked the door and walked in on her in the bathroom. When she complained to the school district, it failed to investigate or otherwise act on her complaint. These allegations are sufficient to defeat summary judgment on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. |
| USA v. Carlos Rivera-Erazo C2-04-08 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 3/19/2004 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers approached him at the bus station and asked him questions. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no seizure when law enforcement merely approaches people and asks them questions. |
| Fraternal Order of Police v. ND Atty. General A3-03-74 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 1/27/2004 |
950 Constitutionality of State Statutes On a motion for attorney fees, the Court awarded the prevailing party the rate that would be charged by lawyers in this district for similar work. |
| Dennis Krause v. Bobcat Company A3-02-43 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 12/10/2003 |
442 Employment Plaintiff brought an age discrimination claim against his former employer under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Each party used different populations in creating their statistical analyses, but the correct population is a question of fact for the jury. Plaintiff provided enough additional information to create a question of fact on his disparate treatment claim. |
| USA v. Sidney Dale Pegel C3-03-59 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 11/12/2003 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant moved to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his rural property, arguing the search warrant lacks probable cause; the warrant affidavit fails to properly draw a nexus to search the property; the warrant was issued on conclusory statements; the supporting affidavit contains misleading statements and omissions; and the breadth of the search warrant rendered it unreasonable. The Court finds there was probable cause to issue the search warrant, there was a sufficient nexus to the rural property, and even if probable cause was lacking, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply in this case. Defendant’s motion to suppress is denied. |
| Fraternal Order of Police v. ND Atty. General A3-03-74 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 10/17/2003 |
950 Constitutionality of State Statutes Two charitable organizations challenged North Dakota’s do-not-call list. The commercial provisions of the legislation are constitutional because they are justified by the substantial interests in protecting the privacy of the home and protecting against fraud, and the law is drawn to reasonably fit those interests. The restrictions on charitable speech are not constitutional. Preventing charities from hiring telemarketers from soliciting funds for them is a direct and substantial burden on speech, and the law is not narrowly tailored to protect privacy or to protect against fraud. |
| USA v. Blaine Morrison C3-03-43 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 8/27/2003 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant filed a motion to suppress arguing that his consent was not voluntary, and even if it was, the search exceeded the scope of his consent. The Court found that Defendant’s alcohol consumption did not affect his judgment, he was old enough to make his own decisions, and the officers did not use physical violence to gain his consent. The search did not exceed the scope of Defendant’s consent because a reasonable person would realize that the consent included a search of the computer. |
| USA v. Casey Patten C3-03-44 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 7/28/2003 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendant filed a motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with luring a minor by computer based on the argument that the government lacked sufficient evidence to prove its case against him. Unless there is a stipulated record or immunity issues are involved, a motion to dismiss based on the sufficiency of the evidence will not be granted. One of the elements of the luring minors statute requires that the government prove that the defendant intended to engage in an illegal sexual activity. To prove this element, the government must present evidence at trial demonstrating that the defendant intended to engage in sexual activity and that the sexual activity would be illegal. |
| USA v. Yorie Von Kahl A3-96-55 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 7/14/2003 |
510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Prisoner filed a motion for correction of his sentence pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A federal court has jurisdiction over crimes against the United States. Since the two individuals who were killed were United States Marshals, the federal court had jurisdiction to sentence the prisoner. |
| USA v. Hang Lin and Wen Jiang C3-03-42 Judge Ralph R. Erickson 7/10/2003 |
000 No Nature of Suit Code Used Defendants filed a motion to suppress arguing that there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion for the traffic stop. When a homeowner, who has been warned by the police that he or she is in a class of people who are at a high risk for burglary, is then informed by a neighbor about a car in the homeowner’s driveway that the homeowner does not recognize, this is a sufficient basis for reasonable and articulable suspicion. |
If the layout of this web page appears plain, and you see few or no graphics, you are probably looking at it with a browser or device that does not fully support CSS.
While this site looks more appealing through CSS-compliant browsers, it content is the same for any web browser