Express Recovery Services, Inc. v Olson

Olson appealed the denial of his motion for attorney fees. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that Olson’s best possible outcome was a $0 net recovery as his tort claims absent his formal employer could not result in a positive net recovery under precedent and thus Olson prevailed below when the district court found neither party proved their claims as Express sought over $10,000 and recovered nothing while Olson achieved his best possible outcome and contractual attorney fees should thus be awarded to Olson. The case was remanded for calculation of fees including fees on appeal.

In the Interests of C.A., M.A. and M.A. (B.D.J. v State)

B.D.J. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed holding evidence that the children’s behavior deteriorated after visits with B.D.J., that the children had no significant relationship with her, that B.D.J. was not making progress in her service plan and visitation with children was compromising placing the children for adoption supported the juvenile court’s best interest finding.

State v Hoffman

Hoffman appealed her sentence. The panel affirmed holding any error in the sentence was invited as it was the same sentence requested by Hoffman’s attorney and Hoffman’s Rule of Criminal Procedure  22(e) argument failed as she failed to prove either the district court lacked jurisdiction or her sentence exceeded the authorized statutory range.