Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Department of Transportation appealed a judgment reversing the Department's decision to suspend Kristin Jones' driving privileges for 180 days. The Department argued the district court erred by reversing the hearing officer's decision on grounds not identified in Jones’ specifications of error. The Supreme Court found that the basis for the district court’s decision to reverse the Department’s order should have been properly raised by the appellee at the administrative level. Therefore, the district court erred in its decision. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Department’s decision. View "Jones v. Levi" on Justia Law

Western Petroleum, LLC, and Maxum Petroleum Operating Company, Inc., doing business as Pilot Logistics Services (Pilot), appealed a district court order affirming their appeal of the Williams County Board of County Commissioners' decision to penalize Pilot for violating the county's temporary housing regulations. In September 2011 the Williams County Board of County Commissioners adopted temporary housing regulations relating to the use of "man camps" or "crew housing facilities" in the county. The use of temporary housing on property within the county was prohibited without a conditional use permit. In 2014 the Board became aware that Pilot was using its property for temporary housing after Western Petroleum's permit expired. Pilot was out of compliance on 40 RVs since September 6, 2012, and on seven mobile home units since September 6, 2013. Pilot also had two two-story framed houses on the property that were not permitted under Western Petroleum's conditional use permit. At its July 2014 meeting, the Board assessed a $29,635,000 penalty against Pilot for violating the temporary housing regulations. The Board calculated the penalty by treating each non-permitted use as a violation subject to a $1,000 penalty per day. The Board calculated the $1,000 penalty on a per housing unit, per day basis. The Board offered Pilot a reduced penalty of $1,885,000 if paid within 10 days. Pilot did not pay the reduced penalty and the Board imposed the full penalty. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding the penalty against Pilot was supported by the evidence and was not an unreasonable interpretation of the temporary housing regulations. The North Dakota Supreme Court disagreed, reversed and remanded because the Board unreasonably interpreted the regulations. View "Western Petroleum, LLC v. Williams Cty. Bd. of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Jesse Koehly appealed the district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Koehly argued the implied consent law as to breath tests violated the state and federal constitutions, he cured his refusal, and the police officers violated his limited right to counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Koehly v. Levi" on Justia Law

Dakota Outdoor Advertising, LLC ("Dakota") appealed the district court's order affirming the Bismarck Board of Commissioner's ("Board") decision affirming the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission's ("Commission") denial of an application for a special use permit. City of Bismarck ordinances regulating placement of digital billboards were changed since the district court entered judgment in this case. Section 14-03-08(3)(b)(2)(j) no longer included a provision for obtaining a special use permit for a digital billboard at a distance of less than 300 feet from a residential area. The current provisions governing siting of digital billboards would no longer permit Dakota to obtain a special use permit for the proposed site. The Board argued this appeal was now made moot. After review, the Supreme Court did not find this appeal was moot, but also found that the Board's decision to deny the special use permit was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order affirming the Board's decision to deny the special use permit. View "Dakota Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law

The City of Fargo appealed a judgment declaring an ordinance relating to construction on property located near rivers unconstitutional under the equal protection clauses of the North Dakota and United States Constitutions. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the ordinance's distinction between platted and unplatted property was rationally related to Fargo's interest in limiting new construction on property near rivers. View "Ferguson v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law