defendants failed to timely commence reworking operations . The Supreme Court further concluded that GADECO failed to show a force majeure condition saved its leases from expiring .
The parties made competing claims as to the validity of their leases on the same Williams County minerals . Zavanna had “ Top Leases ” that would become effective upon the expiration of the “ Bottom Leases ” held by the defendants . By their clear and unambiguous terms , the Bottom Leases automatically terminated upon cessation of production unless certain express conditions were satisfied , including the failure to commence additional drilling or reworking operations within 90 days from the date of cessation of production .
The Supreme Court held that , generally , it ’ s the burden of the party requesting cancellation or termination of a contract to prove the contract is no longer valid . As such , Zavanna bore the burden to prove its quiet title claims , which required it to prove the Bottom Leases were terminated . The district court found there were three periods of production cessation where no reworking operations were commenced , or production had occurred , within the time specified by the Bottom Leases , and therefore the leases terminated . The Supreme Court concluded the district court ’ s findings were not clearly erroneous , and defendants failed to show the findings were induced by an erroneous view of the law or there was no evidence to support them . The Supreme Court rejected arguments by Continental that a de minimis amount of production saved its Top Leases , concluding the district court did not clearly err in finding the total cessation of production from November 5 , 2015 , through February 2016 , including de minimis amounts , triggered the cessation of production clause in Continental ’ s Top Leases . As such , any production outside the 90-day window in the cessation of production clause was irrelevant .
The Supreme Court rejected GADECO ’ s argument that language in its Top Leases ’ force majeure clauses saved them from expiring . The Supreme Court explained GADECO had the burden of proving its ability to comply with its obligations under the leases was actually hindered or prevented by adverse market conditions or inability to obtain materials , not just potentially or hypothetically hindered or prevented . The Supreme Court noted GADECO failed to cite any evidence showing it was unable to obtain materials or equipment . Thus , the district court did not err in concluding GADECO failed to show the force majeure provisions related to adverse market conditions and inability to obtain materials applied to save its leases from expiring .
Matthew J . Bunkers , Ph . D . | 605.390.7243
Certified Consulting Meteorologist ( CCM ) What does a CCM do ? Check out : https :// npweather . com / forms / CCM-article . pdf
• 30 + years of weather / forecasting experience
• Consulting , reports , depositions , & testimony
• Specialties : forensic meteorology , weather & forecasting , radar , satellite , severe storms , hail , rainfall & flooding , fog , winter weather , heavy snow , icing , slip & falls , fire weather , high winds , lightning verification , applied climate & meteorology , ag weather , education & training , and technical editing https :// npweather . com | nrnplnsweather @ gmail . com
Davis v . Mercy Med . Ctr ., 2023 ND 153 . Filed 8 / 17 / 23 .
Michael Davis , a patient at CHI St . Alexius Health Williston ( CHI ), sued CHI alleging it failed to treat signs of kidney disease and timely refer Davis to a nephrologist , which led to Davis ’ kidney failure to damages . A jury found one of CHI ’ s doctors was at fault for his treatment of Davis and awarded $ 1,600,000 in damages , $ 5,614.12 in interest , and $ 204,973.31 in disbursements and costs for a total judgment of $ 1,870,587.43 . CHI moved for a post-trial judgment as a matter of law under N . D . R . Civ . P . 50 , arguing Davis did not present sufficient evidence establishing CHI ’ s fault in failing to refer Davis to nephrologist proximately caused his injuries .
Davis ’ expert witness , Dr . Denker , testified Davis should have been referred to a nephrologist before March 2018 based on abnormal blood and urine test results , and gave his opinion Davis ’ kidney failure and transplant would have been avoided for many years if he had received treatment for his kidney disease earlier . Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict , the Supreme Court concluded a jury could have decided CHI ’ s failure to refer Davis to a nephrologist was the proximate cause of Davis ’ injuries , and the district court did not err in denying CHI ’ s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of proximate cause .
Board of Trustees of The N . D . Public Employee Retirement System v . N . D . Legislative Assembly , 2023 ND 185 . Filed 9 / 28 / 23 .
The Board of Trustees of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System ( NDPERS ) petitioned the Supreme Court seeking declaratory relief and a writ of injunction challenging N . D . C . C . § 54-52-03 and section 41 of S . B . 2015 ( 2023 ), both of which provide for the appointment of four sitting legislators to the board . The board claimed the law placing legislators on the board violated various articles of the Constitution including the single subject rule of N . D . Const . art . IV , § 13 .
S . B . 2015 has 68 sections , 20 of which related to NDPERS and the title of the legislation is “ State government operations , and of NDPERS particularly .” S . B . 2015 originally was introduced with a title of 35 words and only relating to the Office of Management and Budget . The final version of S . B . 2015 contained a title consisting of one sentence comprised of 630 words .
The Court stated art . IV , § 13 of the North Dakota Constitution provides no bill may embrace more than one subject and the subject of the bill must be expressed in its title . The Court stated transparency is the reason for requiring the subject of a bill to be expressed in its title and ensures the public is informed of the matters in a bill , and prevents legislators from unknowingly passing legislation inserted in a bill of which the title gives no intimation . The purpose for prohibiting multiple subjects is to prevent the combining into one bill of several diverse measures , which have no common basis except their separate inability to receive a favorable vote on their own merits .
FALL 2023 19