Court Opinion

ID: 9393159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-09 16:05:48.675504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:51.502689
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           MAY 9, 2023
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                2023 ND 87

Timothy A. Johnson,                                  Plaintiff and Appellant
     v.
City of Jamestown, a Municipality
in the State of North Dakota,                       Defendant and Appellee

                               No. 20220283

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial
District, the Honorable Cherie L. Clark, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Timothy C. Lamb, Grand Forks, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.

Brian D. Schmidt (argued) and Scott K. Porsborg (on brief), Bismarck, N.D.,
for defendant and appellee.
                       Johnson v. City of Jamestown
                              No. 20220283

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Timothy Johnson appeals from a judgment dismissing his personal
injury action against the City of Jamestown entered after a jury found he did
not sustain a serious injury as a result of a motor vehicle collision with a City-
owned vehicle. Johnson argues the district court erred in admitting and
excluding evidence, the district court judge should have recused herself, and
his due process rights were violated. We conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting and excluding evidence and Johnson is
precluded from raising the recusal and due process issues for failure to raise
them in the district court. Franciere v. City of Mandan, 2020 ND 143, ¶ 24, 945
N.W.2d 251 (“Because alleged judicial bias was not raised in the district court,
we will not address it for the first time on appeal.”); Matter of Didier, 2019
ND 263, ¶ 11, 934 N.W.2d 417 (concluding that appellant’s failure to raise
constitutional due process issue in the district court was sufficient for this
Court to decline review on appeal). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(4) and (7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                        1