Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Casey Voigt appealed a judgment affirming the Public Service Commission's ("Commission") order that affirmed its conditional approval of a surface coal mining permit for Coyote Creek Mining Company, L.L.C. ("Company"). The Supreme Court concluded the Commission's order complied with applicable law requiring identification and protection of "alluvial valley floors" and sufficiently addressed Voigt's evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded the Commission's conclusions of law regarding the lack of "alluvial valley floors" within or adjacent to the permit area was supported by the findings of fact and that reasonable minds could have determined the Commission's findings of fact were proved by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. View "Voigt v. N.D. Public Service Commission" on Justia Law

Nandan, LLP appealed the grant of summary judgment and an order denying its N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, ruling that road and utility repairs were incidental to the repair of a water and sewer system damaged by a landslide in Fargo, and that the City of Fargo was therefore not required to pass a resolution of necessity to create an improvement district to fund the repairs. In 2012, a landslide occurred along 32nd Street North in Fargo near where Nandan and Border States Paving, Inc., owned property. The landslide damaged a water main and storm sewer; the street; and Drain No. 10, which was owned, operated, and maintained by the Southeast Cass Water Resource District. The road and adjacent water and sewer lines were owned by Fargo. Fargo created an improvement district to fund repairs to the drain, water main, and sanitary sewer systems on a portion of the drain without adopting a resolution of necessity. Fargo later entered into a joint powers agreement with the District which set forth the parties' obligations for the repairs. The district court granted Fargo's N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, concluding Nandan and Border States had no right to protest under N.D.C.C. 40-22-06 because the city let the bids for project construction, or under N.D.C.C. 40-22-15 because the project constituted a water or sewer improvement for which a resolution of necessity was not required. Finding that Nandan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nandan, LLP v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Dunn County appealed a judgment declaring the Industrial Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the location of oil and gas waste treating plants. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the County lacked the power to veto the Commission's approval of the location for an oil and gas waste treating plant. View "Environmental Driven Solutions v. Dunn County" on Justia Law

The State petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ requiring the district court to grant the State's motion to amend its criminal complaint against Ward County Sheriff Steven Kukowski to allege that criminal conduct occurred in 2014 rather than 2015. The Supreme Court concluded this was an appropriate case to exercise discretionary supervisory jurisdiction, and directed the district court to grant the State's motion to amend the criminal complaint. View "North Dakota v. Romanick" on Justia Law

GEM Razorback, LLC appealed a judgment dismissing its declaratory judgment action because GEM failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and dismissing its claim for specific performance because GEM could not establish that it was a third-party beneficiary of a contract. GEM and Zenergy, Inc. owned working interests in two oil and gas wells located in McKenzie County. Zenergy operated the wells, but GEM had not consented to pay its share of the drilling and operating costs. GEM did not execute a joint operating agreement for the wells and consequently was assessed a risk penalty as a nonconsenting owner. In 2013, Zenergy assigned its interest in the wells to Oasis Petroleum North America LLC. The assignment conveyed all assets, including "all files, records and data maintained by" Zenergy. After the assignment, GEM requested the same information from Oasis. Oasis provided Zenergy with the requested information. However, according to Oasis, some of the requested information for the time period before the assignment was not in its possession. Because of differences in the numbers provided by Zenergy and Oasis, GEM filed applications for hearing with the Industrial Commission requesting that the Commission determine the actual reasonable costs plus risk penalty for the two wells. After a hearing, Oasis agreed to allow GEM to conduct an audit of the wells. The Commission then dismissed the applications without prejudice. During the ensuing audit process, GEM discovered there were documents it requested that were not in Oasis' possession for the time period before the assignment when Zenergy operated the wells. GEM contacted Zenergy and requested an extensive list of 39 specific types of information regarding the wells. Zenergy refused to provide GEM with the requested information. GEM then commenced its declaratory judgment and specific performance action against Zenergy. Zenergy argued the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the request for declaratory relief because GEM failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with the Commission before filing the complaint. Zenergy further argued the claim for specific performance failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because a provision of the assignment agreement specifically bars third-party beneficiary status. The court agreed with Zenergy's arguments and dismissed GEM's action. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling. View "GEM Razorback, LLC v. Zenergy, Inc." on Justia Law

JB Construction, Inc. appealed the district court's judgment affirming Job Service's "Notice of Determination" stating Jesse Jahner's and Vance Jahner's services constituted employment under N.D.C.C. 52-01-01(17). On appeal, JB Construction argued the plain language of section 52-01-01(17)(a)(1) showed new corporate officers did not need to file for an exemption if an exemption was granted to prior officers and the current officers meeting all of the requirements under the statute. The Supreme Court found N.D.C.C. 52-01-01(17)(a)(1) unambiguously required corporate officers to file their own application for an exemption, and as such, affirmed the lower court's judgment. "The exemption of certain officers from 'employment' under the unemployment compensation law is granted to an officer as an individual, not to the officer's position. Under the unemployment compensation law, if an exempt officer transfers his interest and position in a corporation to another individual, the individual must apply for his own exemption." View "J B Construction, Inc. v. Job Service" on Justia Law

Willard Burk appealed a judgment declaring his claim that the State, through the Board of University and School Lands, and the Tax Commissioner (collectively "State"), wrongfully withheld gross production and extraction taxes from his share of oil and gas royalties was frivolous, entitling them to an award of attorney fees. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision that, as a matter of law, the State's settlement agreement with Burk did not exempt him from paying gross production and extraction taxes on his royalty interest, but reversed the award of attorney fees because Burk's claim against the State was not frivolous. View "Burk v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

After the United States Supreme Court remanded these administrative license suspension cases to the North Dakota Supreme Court for further proceedings under "Birchfield v. North Dakota," (136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016)), the North Dakota Court directed reargument on issues about: (1) the appropriate forum to determine findings regarding voluntariness of the drivers' consent to warrantless blood tests incident to a lawful arrest; and (2) if the drivers' consent was not voluntary, whether evidence must be suppressed in an administrative license suspension proceeding. For purposes of these appeals only, the Court assumed the drivers' consent to the warrantless blood tests as involuntary and concluded the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the results of the warrantless blood tests in the license suspension proceedings. The Court therefore affirmed the judgments upholding the suspensions. View "Beylund v. Levi" on Justia Law

Raymond Voisine appealed a district court order finding he remained a sexually dangerous individual and denying his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. Voisine did not contest he met the first factor of a sexually dangerous individual, that he has engaged in sexually predatory conduct. Rather, Voisine argued the district court erred when it determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that he: (1) suffered from a congenital or acquired condition that was manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; (2) was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct; and (3) had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of Voisine" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a Department order revoking Josue Castillo's driving privileges for 180 days for refusing to submit to onsite screening and chemical tests. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, concluding the Department could still administratively revoke driving privileges when the officer had not told the driver that the refusal of the onsite breath test could be cured by submitting to a subsequent chemical test. The Court reinstated the Department's revocation order. View "Castillo v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law