Interest of Buller, 952 N.W.2d 106

Jan 23, 2020: State filed petition to civilly commit David Buller as a "sexually dangerous individual."
Jan 28, 2020: After a preliminary hearing, district court dismissed the petition, finding the State failed to prove a qualifying sexual/mental disorder.
Jan 30, 2020: The district court sua sponte vacated its dismissal without notice; the North Dakota Supreme Court vacated that Jan 30 order as procedurally irregular and expressly said its action was "without prejudice" to the State filing further proceedings or a new petition.
Mar 6, 2020: The State filed a new petition; after evaluation and a treatment hearing, two psychologists (Dr. Byrne for the State and Dr. Mugge for Buller) both opined Buller met the statutory criteria.
May 29, 2020: District court granted the petition, crediting the experts and finding Buller is a sexually dangerous individual in need of continued treatment and rehabilitation.
Buller appealed, arguing the second petition was barred by res judicata and that the commitment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars the second petition	Buller: the Jan 28 dismissal was a final merits judgment; a second petition is barred	State: the Supreme Court vacated the Jan 30 order and expressly preserved the State's ability to file further proceedings or a new petition; no res judicata effect	Not barred — Supreme Court found its prior vacatur and "without prejudice" language permitted a new petition
Whether the State proved commitment by clear and convincing evidence	Buller: the order lacked specific findings and evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard	State: expert evaluations and testimony established the statutory elements and nexus (including difficulty controlling behavior)	Affirmed — district court made detailed findings and credited expert testimony; evidence sufficient
Whether appellate briefing deficiencies affect review	Buller: asserted insufficiency in short, conclusory statements	State/CT: the record and issues required developed argument and citation	Supreme Court declined to meaningfully review due to inadequate briefing and affirmed the district court's findings

Ungar v. N.D. State Univ., 721 N.W.2d 16 (2006) (res judicata forecloses claims raised or that could have been raised previously)
White v. Altru Health Sys., 746 N.W.2d 173 (2008) (interlocutory orders are not final unless intended to be finally dispositive)
Trautman v. Keystone Dev. Corp., 156 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 1968) (order vacating a judgment that leaves the action pending is interlocutory, not appealable)
Hager v. City of Devils Lake, 773 N.W.2d 420 (2009) (dismissal without prejudice has no res judicata effect)
In re Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 25 (2016) (statutory elements required for sexually dangerous individual commitment)
Interest of Nelson, 896 N.W.2d 925 (2017) (due-process requires proof that the disorder causes serious difficulty controlling behavior — nexus to dangerousness)
State v. Noack, 732 N.W.2d 389 (2007) (appellate briefs must state issues, facts, and legal argument or Court may decline review)