Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1951–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Greenwood v. Mooregreen2 sentences2002Dworshak v. Moore, 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2d 799 (quoting Greenwood v. Moore, 545 N.W.2d 790, 793 (N.D.1996)). 1 III [¶ 6] American West argues the Commissioner erred in concluding it was liable for sales tax because when it sells a coupon book it is not selling tangible personal property, but the intangible right to receive discounts from its clients. 1997We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Greenwood v. Moore, 545 N.W.2d 790, 793 (N.D.1996). | 5 | 6 |
North Dakota Department of Transportation v. DuPaulgreen2 sentences2008The agency’s decision must be affirmed unless: “1) the decision is not in accordance with the law; 2) the decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 3) provisions of the Administrative Agencies Practices Act were not complied with in the proceedings before the agency; 4) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; 5) the agency’s findings are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; or 6) the conclusions of law and the agency’s decision are not supported by its findings of fact.” Id. 1996As we explained in North Dakota Dep’t of Transp. v. DuPaul, 487 N.W.2d 593, 595 (N.D.1992), we must affirm the agency’s decision unless: 1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in acco | 3 | 5 |
Houn v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 | 2 | 4 |
Geo. E. Haggart, Inc. v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureaugreen2 sentences1975Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C., and particularly Section 28-32-19, which were not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Rule 86(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.] Section 28-32-19 provides that the trial court, to which the action of the administrative agency is appealed, ‘shall affirm the decision of the agency unless it shall find that such decision or determination is not in accordance with law, or that it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that any of the provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before 1974Instead, we follow the specific statutory guidelines contained in the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C., and particularly Section 28-32-19, which were not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Rule 86(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.] Section 28-32 — 19 provides that the trial court, to which the action of the administrative agency is appealed, “shall affirm the decision of the agency unless it shall find that such decision or determination is not in accordance with law, or that it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that any of the provisio | 2 | 2 |
Samdahl v. North Dakota Department of Transportation Directorgreen1 sentence1998Id. [¶7] “This court exercises restraint when it reviews the findings of an administrative agency; we do not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but instead determine whether a reasonable mind could have determined that the factual conclusions were proven by the weight of the evidence presented.” Samdahl v. North Dakota Dep’t. of Transp., Director, 518 N.W.2d 714, 716 (N.D.1994). [¶ 8] A motor vehicle operator on a highway in this state is deemed to have consented to a chemical test to determine his or her blood alcohol content if arrested for driving or being in actual physical co | 1 | 1 |
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkingreen1 sentence1997“We do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but we determine only whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined the facts or conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence.” Zimmerman at 481 (citing Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D.1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Robertson Ex Rel. Robertson v. Cass County Social Servicesgreen2 sentences1996Estate of Robertson v. Cass County Social Services, 492 N.W.2d 599, 603 (N.D.1992), explained that, when we review an agency decision, we must affirm unless we find, among other things, that the directions of NDCC Ch. 28-32 have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency, or that the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing. 1996Estate of Robertson v. Cass County Social Services, 492 N.W.2d 599, 603 (N.D.1992), explained that, when we review an agency decision, we must affirm unless we find, among other things, that the directions of NDCC Ch. 28-32 have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency, or that the agency's rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureaugreen2 sentences1996The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing." Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 704 (N.D.1993) (quoting Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1985)), summarizes the concept: "It is a basic rule of administrative law that an administrative regulation may not exceed statutory authority or supersede a statute, and that a regulation which goes beyond what the Legislature has authorized is void." Here, the district court reasoned: The record does not disclose what efforts have been made by the Bureau to establish the syste 1996The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.” Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 704 (N.D.1998) (quoting Moore v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1985)), summarizes the concept: “It is a’ basic rule of administrative law that an administrative regulation may not exceed statutory authority or supersede a statute, and that a regulation which goes beyond what the Legislature has authorized is void.” Here, the district court reasoned: The record does not disclose what efforts have been made by the Bureau to establish the syst | 1 | 1 |
Little v. Tracygreen2 sentences1996The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing." Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 704 (N.D.1993) (quoting Moore v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1985)), summarizes the concept: "It is a basic rule of administrative law that an administrative regulation may not exceed statutory authority or supersede a statute, and that a regulation which goes beyond what the Legislature has authorized is void." Here, the district court reasoned: The record does not disclose what efforts have been made by the Bureau to establish the syste 1996The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.” Little v. Tracy, 497 N.W.2d 700, 704 (N.D.1998) (quoting Moore v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 374 N.W.2d 71, 74 (N.D.1985)), summarizes the concept: “It is a’ basic rule of administrative law that an administrative regulation may not exceed statutory authority or supersede a statute, and that a regulation which goes beyond what the Legislature has authorized is void.” Here, the district court reasoned: The record does not disclose what efforts have been made by the Bureau to establish the syst | 1 | 1 |
Madison v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence1996When “systemic disregard of law” by a governmental agency becomes evident, a court may reverse a decision in favor of the government to prophylactically ensure that the government “acts consistently and predictably in accordance with the law.” Madison v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243, 246-47 (N.D.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Dittus v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence1995Under [section] 28-32-19(4), N.D.C.C., we must overturn an administrative agency decision if the agency's rules or procedures do not afford the appellant a fair hearing." Dittus v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 100, 102-03 (N.D.1993) [citations omitted]. | 1 | 1 |
Schadler v. Job Service North Dakotagreen1 sentence1988FAIR HEARING Under NDCC 28-32-19(4) we overturn an agency decision if “[t]he rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.” For a fair hearing “both parties should be given equal opportunity to present evidence and such evidence should be carefully considered by the administrative agency.” Schadler v. Job Service North Dakota, 361 N.W.2d 254, 258 (N.D.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dworshak v. Moore
green
2 sentences2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 2002We affirm the agency’s decision unless: “1) a preponderance of the evidence does not support the agency’s findings; 2) the agency’s findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law and its decision; 3) the agency’s decision violates the constitutional rights of the appellant; 4) the agency did not comply with the Administrative Agencies Practice Act in its proceedings; 5) the agency’s rules or procedures have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing; or 6) the agency’s decision is not in accordance with the law.” Morrell , at ¶ 6, quoting Dworshak v. Moore , 1998 ND 172, ¶ 6 , 583 N.W.2 | 9 | 1999–2002 |
Application of Northern States Power Company
green
2 sentences1974O’Brien v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 222 N.W.2d 379 (N.D.1974); Application of Northern States Power Co., 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969). 1974Section 28-32-18, N.D.C.C.; Application of Northern States Power Company, 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969); In re Superior Service Company, 94 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1958).” In re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, supra, 183 N.W.2d 520 at 534 . | 3 | 1971–1974 |
Morris v. Job Service North Dakota
neutral
2 sentences2004Baier , at ¶ 6; Morris v. Job Service North Dakota , 2003 ND 45, ¶ 5 , 658 N.W.2d 345 . [¶7] In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we decide only whether a reasoning mind could have reasonably determined the agency’s factual conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence. 2004Baier , at ¶ 6; Morris v. Job Service North Dakota , 2003 ND 45, ¶ 5 , 658 N.W.2d 345 . [¶7] In reviewing an agency’s findings of fact, we do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency; rather, we decide only whether a reasoning mind could have reasonably determined the agency’s factual conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences1975Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972).” Thus our review initially is on the record as made by the administrative agency and whether or not its decision is in accordance with the law as set out in Section 6-03-13, N.D.C.C., as amended, which provides as follows: “An association organized to do business in any city in this state, and which has sold or converted its business to a national bank or to any other banking association which is continued at the same place, shall not use its c 1974Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972). | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Suedel v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
green
2 sentences1975Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C., and particularly Section 28-32-19, which were not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Rule 86(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.] Section 28-32-19 provides that the trial court, to which the action of the administrative agency is appealed, ‘shall affirm the decision of the agency unless it shall find that such decision or determination is not in accordance with law, or that it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that any of the provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before 1974Instead, we follow the specific statutory guidelines contained in the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C., and particularly Section 28-32-19, which were not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. [See Rule 86(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.] Section 28-32 — 19 provides that the trial court, to which the action of the administrative agency is appealed, “shall affirm the decision of the agency unless it shall find that such decision or determination is not in accordance with law, or that it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that any of the provisio | 2 | 1974–1975 |
Ferguson v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences1975Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972).” Thus our review initially is on the record as made by the administrative agency and whether or not its decision is in accordance with the law as set out in Section 6-03-13, N.D.C.C., as amended, which provides as follows: “An association organized to do business in any city in this state, and which has sold or converted its business to a national bank or to any other banking association which is continued at the same place, shall not use its c 1974Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972). | 2 | 1974–1975 |
In Re Superior Service Company
green
2 sentences1974Section 28-32-18, N.D.C.C.; Application of Northern States Power Company, 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969); In re Superior Service Company, 94 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1958).” In re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, supra, 183 N.W.2d 520 at 534 . 1974Section 28-32-18, N.D.C.C.; Application of Northern States Power Company, 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969); In re Superior Service Company, 94 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1958)." In re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, supra, 183 N.W.2d 520 at 534 . | 2 | 1971–1974 |
Spectrum Care LLC v. Stevick
green
2 sentences2009Spectrum Care LLC v. Stevick, 2006 ND 155, ¶ 8 , 718 N.W.2d 593 ; N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-46 and 28-32-49. [¶ 11] A person may not receive unemployment benefits under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(2) if the person was discharged from employment for misconduct. 2009Spectrum Care LLC v. Stevick, 2006 ND 155, ¶ 8 , 718 N.W.2d 593 ; N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-46 and 28-32-49. [¶ 11] A person may not receive unemployment benefits under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(2) if the person was discharged from employment for misconduct. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Baier v. Job Service North Dakota
green
2 sentences2006Baier , at ¶ 6. [¶ 9] In Baier, 2004 ND 27, ¶¶ 5-7 , 673 N.W.2d 923 , we outlined the standard for analyzing employee misconduct in the context of claims for unemployment benefits: A person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(2) if discharged for misconduct in connection with employment. 2006Baier , at ¶ 6. [¶ 9] In Baier, 2004 ND 27, ¶¶ 5-7 , 673 N.W.2d 923 , we outlined the standard for analyzing employee misconduct in the context of claims for unemployment benefits: A person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(2) if discharged for misconduct in connection with employment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Wetzel v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2001N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19. *422 Wetzel , 2001 ND 35, ¶ 9 , 622 N.W.2d 180 . 2001N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19. *422 Wetzel , 2001 ND 35, ¶ 9 , 622 N.W.2d 180 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Municipal Services Corp. v. State Ex Rel. North Dakota Department of Health & Consolidated Laboratories
green
1 sentence1993Municipal Services Corp. v. State, 483 N.W.2d 560 (N.D.1992). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
In Re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, in Cass County
green
2 sentences1974Section 28-32-18, N.D.C.C.; Application of Northern States Power Company, 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969); In re Superior Service Company, 94 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1958).” In re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, supra, 183 N.W.2d 520 at 534 . 1974Section 28-32-18, N.D.C.C.; Application of Northern States Power Company, 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969); In re Superior Service Company, 94 N.W.2d 84 (N.D.1958).” In re Township 143 North, Range 55 West, Cass County, supra, 183 N.W.2d 520 at 534 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
O'Brien v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
neutral
1 sentence1974O’Brien v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 222 N.W.2d 379 (N.D.1974); Application of Northern States Power Co., 171 N.W.2d 751 (N.D.1969). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Feist v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
neutral
2 sentences1974If the decision of the agency is not affirmed by the court, it shall be modified or reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the agency for disposition in accordance with the decision of the court.” In 1950 this court decided the case of Feist v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 77 N.D. 267 , 42 N.W.2d 665 (1950), which was an appeal involving two issues of fact: (1) whether the illness of the respondent’s deceased husband with atypical pneumonia was fairly traceable to his employment; and (2) whether two cerebral hemorrhages suffered by the deceased husband, and his resulting de 1974If the decision of the agency is not affirmed by the court, it shall be modified or reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the agency for disposition in accordance with the decision of the court.” In 1950 this court decided the case of Feist v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 77 N.D. 267 , 42 N.W.2d 665 (1950), which was an appeal involving two issues of fact: (1) whether the illness of the respondent’s deceased husband with atypical pneumonia was fairly traceable to his employment; and (2) whether two cerebral hemorrhages suffered by the deceased husband, and his resulting de | 1 | 1974–1974 |
In Re Theel Brpthers Rapid Transit Co.
green
1 sentence1951“The courts do not have the jurisdiction, primarily, to decide administrative questions assigned to the public utilities commission for determination, and where such commission in its proceedings furnishes due process of law and there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the commission, the courts have no authority to substitute their judgment for that of the commission.” Syllabus 3, In re Theel Brothers Rapid Transit Co., 72 ND 280 , 6 NW2d 560 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.