Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Nicole Jacobson appealed when the district court denied her motion to dismiss and she conditionally pled guilty to driving under suspension or revocation under Grand Forks City Code section 8-0201. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in analyzing Jacobson's motion to dismiss under N.D.C.C. 39-06-42 and by failing to apply relevant municipal code provisions. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Grand Forks v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

In August 2014, the First Western Bank and Trust (Bank) applied for two variances from City of Minot zoning regulations for off-street parking after incorrectly calculating the size of an addition to its bank building. The Bank's application sought to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces for its building from 131 to 110 and to reduce the required width of each parking space from 10 to 9 feet. After notice to the Bank's neighbors, the Minot Planning Commission met to consider the application, and several neighbors appeared to oppose the application. The Planning Commission approved the application, finding the existence of an exceptional topographical hardship and the variances could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without impairing the general purpose and intent of Minot's comprehensive zoning plan. The Planning Commission affirmed its earlier decision approving the application. The City Council later affirmed the Planning Commission's decision. Sixteen Minot residents living near the Bank appealed a judgment dismissing their appeal of the City Council’s decision to grant the Bank's application for zoning variances. The residents argued the district court erred in ruling they lacked standing under N.D.C.C. 40-47-12 to appeal the City Council's decision granting the variances. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in applying N.D.C.C. 40-47-12 as grounds for its standing decision. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded the residents were not aggrieved applicants authorized to appeal a variance decision under N.D.C.C. 40-47-11. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment dismissing their appeal. View "Schmidt v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

Benjamin Garcia appealed a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision revoking his driving privileges for 180 days. After review, the Supreme Court concluded a police officer's initial approach of Garcia's parked vehicle was not a seizure and a reasonable and articulable suspicion supported the officer's further investigation. Furthermore, the Court concluded North Dakota's test refusal statute and implied consent laws were not unconstitutional as applied in this case, because Garcia refused the police officer's warrantless request to take a chemical breath test after he had been arrested. View "Garcia v. Levi" on Justia Law

Joan and Shane Tangedal appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing their negligence claim against the Lake Region District Health Unit and denying their motion to amend their complaint to add a Lake Region employee, Allen McKay, as a defendant to their lawsuit. In September 2014, the Tangedals sued William and Mavis Mertens, Lake Region, and the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners for damages resulting from the January 2014 collapse of a septic tank on land the Tangedals had purchased from the Mertens in 2009. The Tangedals alleged the Mertens failed to disclose that in 2000 they built an addition to the residence on the land on top of the septic system in violation of applicable state and county regulations. The Tangedals also alleged that, as part of the purchase and as required under North Dakota law and Ramsey County regulations, McKay, the Environmental Health Supervisor for Lake Region, inspected the septic system and negligently certified it as "expected to function satisfactorily and . . . not likely to create an insanitary condition." Lake Region and the Ramsey County Board answered, denying liability and alleging governmental immunity in the performance of a public duty. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Lake Region and McKay had immunity for their alleged acts under N.D.C.C. section 32-12.1-03(3). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Tangedals' motion to amend their complaint and did not err in granting summary judgment dismissal of their claim against Lake Region. View "Tangedal v. Mertens" on Justia Law

New Public School District #8 appealed a judgment affirming the State Board of Public School Education's decision approving annexation of certain real properties to the Williston School District. New Public School District argued the State Board erred in approving the petition for annexation because the property to be annexed was not contiguous to the Williston School District before the petition was heard. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Public Sch. Dist. #8 v. North Dakota Bd. of Public Sch. Edu." on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Tyler Ell appealed the affirmance of a Department of Transportation decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Ell argued the Department erred in suspending his license because there was no evidence establishing officers had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle, his continued seizure after the purpose of the initial traffic stop was complete violated his constitutional rights, and the Intoxilyzer breath test was not fairly administered. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the hearing officer erred in admitting the Intoxilyzer results. View "Ell v. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Jonathan Garaas appeals after a district court entered a judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 2015, the Cass County Joint Water District ("District") ordered the establishment of an assessment district to fund the development, operation and maintenance of a Fargo-Moorhead flood risk management project. Garaas filed a notice of appeal of the decision with the district court. Thereafter, a Cass County deputy sheriff served Garaas' notice of appeal on the District's secretary-treasurer, Carol Harbeke Lewis. Lewis was not a member of the District's governing board. Attorneys from Ohnstad Twichell, P.C., served Garaas a notice of appearance in the case. The deputy sheriff's return was served on the District's attorneys and filed in the district court. The District then moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. A Cass County deputy sheriff served Garaas' notice of appeal on District board member, Mark Brodshaug. Then the district court dismissed Garaas' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding he failed to perfect his appeal by properly serving the notice of appeal on a board member as required by N.D.C.C. 28-34-01. Garaas appealed the dismissal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Garaas v. Cass County Joint Water Resource District" on Justia Law

In 2013, Leona Kuhn was charged in Napoleon Municipal Court with improper disposal of refuse in violation of Napoleon city ordinance 10.0310. After her house had been severely damaged by fire, Kuhn disposed of debris from the house in the Napoleon city dump. The municipal court found Kuhn guilty of improper disposal, and she appealed to the district court. After a March 2014 trial, the district court found her guilty of the infraction for improper disposal. The court entered a criminal judgment imposing a $500 fine, but the court also purported to defer imposition of sentence and have Kuhn remove or relocate rubbish "to the City's satisfaction." In April 2014 Kuhn moved the district court for a restitution hearing, which was held in May 2014. After the hearing the court declined to modify the criminal judgment and entered an order denying her request for a written restitution order, stating no restitution had been ordered. Kuhn appealed. In 2015, the district court held a hearing on remand. The court decided to defer imposition of the $500 fine for the infraction and to order restitution rather than restoration of the property. The court initially scheduled a restitution hearing for October 5, 2015, without objection, but ultimately held the restitution hearing on October 21, 2015. After the hearing, the court entered an order deferring imposition of a $500 fine for six months and requiring Kuhn pay restitution in the amount of $10,686.98. Kuhn argued the district court's order deferring imposition of sentence and imposing payment of restitution of $10,686.98 should be set aside. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court's order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Napoleon v. Kuhn" on Justia Law