Hagen v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund
Citations
- 971 N.W.2d 833
- 2022 ND 53
Syllabus
Courts have broad discretion when deciding whether to grant leave to amend a complaint. Amendments correcting technical deficiencies relate back to the date of the original pleading. Agencies of political subdivisions are public entities subject to the open records law. \Agencies\ refers to a relationship created by law or contract whereby one party delegates the transaction of some lawful business to another. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all records of a public entity are public records. The plain meaning of \provided by law\ does not operate to create additional open records exemptions arising from court rules defining privileges and discovery limitations. Rule 502, N.D.R.Ev., is an evidentiary rule applicable to court proceedings, and does not create a specific exception to the open records law. Under N.D.R.Ev. 502(d)(7), there generally is no attorney-client privilege as to a communication between a public officer or agency and its lawyers. A public entity's attorney work product must be made available for public disclosure following completion of litigation, unless disclosure would have an adverse fiscal effect on the conduct or settlement of other pending or reasonably predictable civil or criminal litigation or adversarial administrative proceedings, or the attorney work product reflects mental impressions, opinions, conclusions, or legal theories regarding potential liability of a public entity. If the potential for liability is entirely in the past, the record is no longer exempt. Only if the records relate to circumstances for which there remains a genuine potential for liability may the records remain exempt. Under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-21.2(1), awarding costs and attorney's fees is discretionary and a court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting the application of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation upon grounds of the amendments’ civil remedial character
- rejecting defendant’s collateral estoppel argument where defendant refused sex offender therapy and violated parole as result of nonsexual offenses committed after defendant was deemed no longer sexually dangerous
- addressing the issue in the context of the 1999 amendment to the sexually dangerous persons statute, G.L.c. 123A, which significantly expanded the statute’s application to the then-present inmate population in the Commonwealth
- stressing society’s “legitimate,” “substantial,” and “compelling” interests in being protected from sexual predators
- “Whether a statute was intended to be criminal or civil depends on the Legislature’s intent, which is a matter of statutory construction”
- “The Legislature intended the current version of c. 123A, as with former versions, to be remedial”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Tufte, Jerod E.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.