90 North Dakota opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bosch v. Mooregreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of | 5 | 5 |
McPeak v. Mooregreen2 sentences2008“Fair administration of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the method approved by the State Toxicologist for conducting the test has been scrupulously followed.” Buchholz , at ¶ 7 (citing McPeak v. Moore, 545 N.W.2d 761, 764 (N.D.1996)). “ ‘However, “scrupulous” compliance does not mean “hypertechnical” compliance.’ ” Buchholz , at ¶ 7 (quoting City of West Fargo v. Hawkins, 2000 ND 168, ¶ 16 , 616 N.W.2d 856 ). [¶ 11] The issue in this case is the State Toxicologist’s approved method for administering a breath test with an Intoxi-lyzer; the approved method requires that “[b] 2008“Fair administration of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the method approved by the State Toxicologist for conducting the test has been scrupulously followed.” Buchholz , at ¶ 7 (citing McPeak v. Moore, 545 N.W.2d 761, 764 (N.D.1996)). “ ‘However, “scrupulous” compliance does not mean “hypertechnical” compliance.’ ” Buchholz , at ¶ 7 (quoting City of West Fargo v. Hawkins, 2000 ND 168, ¶ 16 , 616 N.W.2d 856 ). [¶ 11] The issue in this case is the State Toxicologist’s approved method for administering a breath test with an Intoxi-lyzer; the approved method requires that “[b] | 4 | 6 |
Geiger v. Hjellegreen2 sentences2025Dep't of Transp., 498 N.W.2d 167, 168 (N.D. 1993) (affirming hearing officer’s finding inability to give a blood test due to veins, refusal to provide a urine sample, and not “blow[ing] a proper sample” for the Intoxilyzer test was a refusal); Geiger v. Hjelle, 396 N.W.2d 302, 303 (N.D. 1986) (affirming hearing officer’s finding purposely providing deficient samples constitutes a refusal). 2025Dep't of Transp., 498 N.W.2d 167, 168 (N.D. 1993) (affirming hearing officer’s finding inability to give a blood test due to veins, refusal to provide a urine sample, and not “blow[ing] a proper sample” for the Intoxilyzer test was a refusal); Geiger v. Hjelle, 396 N.W.2d 302, 303 (N.D. 1986) (affirming hearing officer’s finding purposely providing deficient samples constitutes a refusal). | 3 | 4 |
City of Bismarck v. Boschgreen2 sentences2005See also City of Bismarck v. Bosch , 2005 ND 12, ¶ 11 (concluding analytical report and directive “that a standard solution may be used for up to 50 tests is not a part of the approved method” and proof of the number of tests is not a prerequisite to showing fair administration of the test or to admission of the test results); Kiecker v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp. , 2005 ND 23, ¶ 13 (holding recalibration of Intoxilyzer machines is not part of the method prescribed by the State Toxicologist and proof of recalibration is not a foundational requirement for admission of an Intoxilyzer test res 2005See also City of Bismarck v. Bosch , 2005 ND 12, ¶ 11 (concluding analytical report and directive “that a standard solution may be used for up to 50 tests is not a part of the approved method” and proof of the number of tests is not a prerequisite to showing fair administration of the test or to admission of the test results); Kiecker v. North Dakota Dep’t of Transp. , 2005 ND 23, ¶ 13 (holding recalibration of Intoxilyzer machines is not part of the method prescribed by the State Toxicologist and proof of recalibration is not a foundational requirement for admission of an Intoxilyzer test res | 3 | 3 |
Kuntz v. State Highway Commissionergreen2 sentences2008R.P.'s parents were already in the room and there was a significant window of time remaining after R.P. completed the Intoxilyzer test. [¶24] We now hold coupled with our decision in Kuntz v. State Highway Com'r., 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1987), that the right to counsel provision of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, embodied in N.D.C.C. § 27-20-26, provides juveniles a limited right to counsel before deciding whether to consent to chemical testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01. 2008R.P.'s parents were already in the room and there was a significant window of time remaining after R.P. completed the Intoxilyzer test. [¶24] We now hold coupled with our decision in Kuntz v. State Highway Com'r., 405 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1987), that the right to counsel provision of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, embodied in N.D.C.C. § 27-20-26, provides juveniles a limited right to counsel before deciding whether to consent to chemical testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01. | 2 | 5 |
Kiecker v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2019In Kiecker , this Court held steps not expressly included in the prescribed methods provided by the State Toxicologist are not foundational requirements for the admission of Intoxilyzer test records. 2005 ND 23 , ¶ 13, 691 N.W.2d 266 . 2019In Kiecker , this Court held steps not expressly included in the prescribed methods provided by the State Toxicologist are not foundational requirements for the admission of Intoxilyzer test records. 2005 ND 23 , ¶ 13, 691 N.W.2d 266 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Chihanskigreen2 sentences2008In Johnson, 2004 ND 59, ¶ 18 , 676 N.W.2d 807 , the defendant ar gued that “there was no testimony provided to establish that he was continuously observed by the officer from the point of administration of the S-D2 test until the point of the Intoxilyzer test.” This Court explained that “[although there was no testimony that the officer constantly observed Johnson, observation is not the exclusive method of ascertaining whether the twenty-minute requirement has been met.” Johnson , at ¶ 18 (citing Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d at 624 ). 2008In Johnson, 2004 ND 59, ¶ 18 , 676 N.W.2d 807 , the defendant ar gued that “there was no testimony provided to establish that he was continuously observed by the officer from the point of administration of the S-D2 test until the point of the Intoxilyzer test.” This Court explained that “[although there was no testimony that the officer constantly observed Johnson, observation is not the exclusive method of ascertaining whether the twenty-minute requirement has been met.” Johnson , at ¶ 18 (citing Chihanski, 540 N.W.2d at 624 ). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Strohgreen2 sentences2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . 2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Strohgreen2 sentences2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . 2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Sadekgreen2 sentences2019In State v. Sadek , 552 N.W.2d 71 , 73 (N.D. 1996), the defendant moved at trial to have the results of his Intoxilyzer test suppressed, arguing he was denied the opportunity to consult with an attorney before he took the test. 2019In State v. Sadek, 552 N.W.2d 71, 73 (N.D. 1996), the defendant moved at trial to have the results of his Intoxilyzer test suppressed, arguing he was denied the opportunity to consult with an attorney before he took the test. | 2 | 3 |
Steinmeyer v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . 2017This Court has-said “fair administration” of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the approved method for conducting the test has been “scrupulously followed.” See State v. Stroh, 2011 ND 139, ¶ 4 , 800 N.W.2d 276 ; Steinmeyer v. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 126, ¶ 9 , 768 N.W.2d 491 . | 2 | 3 |
City of Grand Forks v. Scialdonegreen2 sentences2005In Scialdone, 2005 ND 24, ¶ 2 , 691 N.W.2d 198 , a driver objected to introduction of an Intoxilyzer test result because the machine used was actually certified in Bismarck, rather than in Grand Forks where he was tested, and “ ‘[t]he intoxilyzer training manual says any time the intoxilyzer is moved it has to be recal-ibrated by a field inspector.’ ” The Supreme Court ruled: Neither N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) nor the approved method promulgated by the State Toxicologist mentions either the student manual or anything about completing checks on the calibration when an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine is mo 2005In Scialdone, 2005 ND 24, ¶ 2 , 691 N.W.2d 198 , a driver objected to introduction of an Intoxilyzer test result because the machine used was actually certified in Bismarck, rather than in Grand Forks where he was tested, and “ ‘[t]he intoxilyzer training manual says any time the intoxilyzer is moved it has to be recal-ibrated by a field inspector.’ ” The Supreme Court ruled: Neither N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) nor the approved method promulgated by the State Toxicologist mentions either the student manual or anything about completing checks on the calibration when an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine is mo | 2 | 3 |
Kobilansky v. Liffriggreen2 sentences1999See , e.g. , Kobilansky v. Liffrig , 358 N.W.2d 781, 790 (N.D. 1984) (stating the “customary common law rule that the moving party has the burden of proof is generally observed in administrative hearings.”) Therefore, where questions exist regarding the approved method, the State Toxicologist or an authorized deputy should clarify or explain the approved method and whether or not the variance could have affected the blood alcohol test result. 1999See , e.g. , Kobilansky v. Liffrig , 358 N.W.2d 781, 790 (N.D. 1984) (stating the “customary common law rule that the moving party has the burden of proof is generally observed in administrative hearings.”) Therefore, where questions exist regarding the approved method, the State Toxicologist or an authorized deputy should clarify or explain the approved method and whether or not the variance could have affected the blood alcohol test result. | 2 | 3 |
May v. Sprynczynatykgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., May, 2005 ND 76, ¶ 31 , 695 N.W.2d 196 (holding hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in admitting the Intoxilyzer test results when no timely, specific foundation objection based on claimed facial irregularity was made, waiving the objection to the proffered evidence); Richter v. N.D. 2020See, e.g., May, 2005 ND 76, ¶ 31 , 695 N.W.2d 196 (holding hearing officer did not abuse his discretion in admitting the Intoxilyzer test results when no timely, specific foundation objection based on claimed facial irregularity was made, waiving the objection to the proffered evidence); Richter v. N.D. | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Schense v. Hjellegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Pokrzywinski v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Keller v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Salter v. Hjellegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Turner v. R.P.green | 2 | 2 |
| In the Interest of Rpgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Boyce v. Backesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Asbridgegreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Lambgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Vogelgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Zinkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Hirschkorngreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sabinash v. Director of Deparment of Transportationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Commissionergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Lund v. North Dakota State Highway Departmentgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Borowicz v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Gravengreen | 2 | 2 |
| City of Fairgo v. Thompsongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Pitmangreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Kimballgreen | 2 | 2 |
Buchholz v. North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2012“Fair administration of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the method approved by the State Toxicologist for conducting the test has been scrupulously followed”; however, “‘scrupulous’ compliance does not mean ‘hypertechnical’ compliance.” Buchholz , 2002 ND 23, ¶ 7 , 639 N.W.2d 490 . 2012“Fair administration of an Intoxilyzer test may be established by proof that the method approved by the State Toxicologist for conducting the test has been scrupulously followed”; however, “‘scrupulous’ compliance does not mean ‘hypertechnical’ compliance.” Buchholz , 2002 ND 23, ¶ 7 , 639 N.W.2d 490 . | 1 | 7 |
Buchholtz v. DIRECTOR, ND DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2009Id.; see also Buchholtz, 2008 ND 53 , ¶ 13, 746 N.W.2d 181 . [¶ 13] In Buchholz, 2002 ND 23, ¶¶ 3, 12 , 639 N.W.2d 490 , the police officer testified that he did not physically look into the defendant’s mouth at any time prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test and could not recall whether he had asked the defendant if she had anything in her mouth prior to administering the test. 2009Id.; see also Buchholtz, 2008 ND 53 , ¶ 13, 746 N.W.2d 181 . [¶ 13] In Buchholz, 2002 ND 23, ¶¶ 3, 12 , 639 N.W.2d 490 , the police officer testified that he did not physically look into the defendant’s mouth at any time prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test and could not recall whether he had asked the defendant if she had anything in her mouth prior to administering the test. | 1 | 4 |
Schwind v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of | 1 | 3 |
Larson v. Mooregreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of | 1 | 3 |
Bryl v. Backesgreen2 sentences2002Test operators are not required “to ask subjects if they have anything in their mouths or to check their mouths prior to administering the test.” Id. [¶10] In Bryl v. Backes , 477 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1991), a driver challenged the Department’s decision to suspend his license, alleging the approved method for administering an Intoxilyzer test was not followed. 2002Test operators are not required “to ask subjects if they have anything in their mouths or to check their mouths prior to administering the test.” Id. [¶10] In Bryl v. Backes , 477 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1991), a driver challenged the Department’s decision to suspend his license, alleging the approved method for administering an Intoxilyzer test was not followed. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schwind v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2013Regardless of when the officer said he began to ascertain the time, the evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding that the twenty-minute waiting period had been observed by the time the officer administered the Intoxi-lyzer test. 2004 ND 59, ¶¶ 16-17 , 676 N.W.2d 807 . [¶ 15] At the administrative hearing, Mees argued the Intoxilyzer test was not fairly administered. 2013Regardless of when the officer said he began to ascertain the time, the evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding that the twenty-minute waiting period had been observed by the time the officer administered the Intoxi-lyzer test. 2004 ND 59, ¶¶ 16-17 , 676 N.W.2d 807 . [¶ 15] At the administrative hearing, Mees argued the Intoxilyzer test was not fairly administered. | 7 | 2005–2013 |
Ringsaker v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2019Dep't of Transp ., 1999 ND 127 , 596 N.W.2d 328 to support his position; however, in that case, a flaw was ascertainable when viewing the Intoxilyzer test result on its own because there, the Intoxilyzer printed an incorrect figure ("22/*0/17") on the results where the date should have been. 2019Dep't of Transp ., 1999 ND 127 , 596 N.W.2d 328 to support his position; however, in that case, a flaw was ascertainable when viewing the Intoxilyzer test result on its own because there, the Intoxilyzer printed an incorrect figure ("22/*0/17") on the results where the date should have been. | 4 | 2002–2019 |
Lund v. Hjelle
green
2 sentences1999Sandstrom William A. Neumann Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner FOOTNOTES 0: Burley relies on Krehlik v. Moore , 542 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1996), and Lund v. Hjelle , 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974), to support the assertion that he cured his initial refusal to take an Intoxilyzer test by later agreeing to submit to a blood test. 1999Sandstrom William A. Neumann Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner FOOTNOTES 0: Burley relies on Krehlik v. Moore , 542 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1996), and Lund v. Hjelle , 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974), to support the assertion that he cured his initial refusal to take an Intoxilyzer test by later agreeing to submit to a blood test. | 3 | 1999–2000 |
Krehlik v. Moore
green
2 sentences1999Sandstrom William A. Neumann Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner FOOTNOTES 0: Burley relies on Krehlik v. Moore , 542 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1996), and Lund v. Hjelle , 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974), to support the assertion that he cured his initial refusal to take an Intoxilyzer test by later agreeing to submit to a blood test. 1999Sandstrom William A. Neumann Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner FOOTNOTES 0: Burley relies on Krehlik v. Moore , 542 N.W.2d 443 (N.D. 1996), and Lund v. Hjelle , 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974), to support the assertion that he cured his initial refusal to take an Intoxilyzer test by later agreeing to submit to a blood test. | 3 | 1999–2000 |
Koenig v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2005 ND 95, ¶ 15 , 696 N.W.2d 534 (officer’s failure to provide Department with operator’s license “does not destroy the Director’s jurisdiction to suspend a violator’s driving privileges”); but see, Schwind, 462 N.W.2d at 151 (“the Director’s jurisdiction was properly exercised”); Bosch v. Moore, 517 N.W.2d 412, 413 (N.D. 1994) (stating “officer’s failure to submit the Intoxilyzer test records deprived DOT of authority to suspend Bosch’s driving privileges”); Larson v. Moore, 1997 ND 227, ¶ 10 , 571 N.W.2d 151 (officer’s failure to comply with statute deprived Department of | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Wingerter v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2023In Wingerter, the driver was arrested for DUI and consented to a blood test. 530 N.W.2d at 363 . 2023In Wingerter, the driver was arrested for DUI and consented to a blood test. 530 N.W.2d at 363 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Keller v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
neutral
2 sentences2023Dep’t of Transp., 2015 ND 9, ¶ 13 , 858 N.W.2d 316 (forwarding results of drug analytical report to Director was not required “to confer authority on the Department to suspend an individual’s driving privileges”). 2023Dep’t of Transp., 2015 ND 9, ¶ 13 , 858 N.W.2d 316 (forwarding results of drug analytical report to Director was not required “to confer authority on the Department to suspend an individual’s driving privileges”). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Ell v. Director, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2018Rolfson’s attorney declined to move for a continuance. [¶4] When the State attempted to introduce the Intoxilyzer test result, Rolfson’s attorney objected, not on the basis of the late disclosure, but because there was no foundation evidence showing that the Intoxilyzer device was installed by a field inspector as required under Ell v. Dir., Dep’t of Transp. , 2016 ND 164, ¶¶ 21-22 , 883 N.W.2d 464 . 2018Rolfson’s attorney declined to move for a continuance. [¶4] When the State attempted to introduce the Intoxilyzer test result, Rolfson’s attorney objected, not on the basis of the late disclosure, but because there was no foundation evidence showing that the Intoxilyzer device was installed by a field inspector as required under Ell v. Dir., Dep’t of Transp. , 2016 ND 164, ¶¶ 21-22 , 883 N.W.2d 464 . | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Richter v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2020Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 150, ¶ 21 , 786 N.W.2d 716 (“Because this issue was not raised before the hearing officer, was not specifically stated in his specifications of error in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4), and was not adequately supported in his appellate brief to this Court, we decline to address it in this appeal.”). [¶14] The disposition of this case turns on the precise language used in the hearing officer’s July 12, 2019, disposition of Jorgenson’s petition for reconsideration. 2020Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 150, ¶ 21 , 786 N.W.2d 716 (“Because this issue was not raised before the hearing officer, was not specifically stated in his specifications of error in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4), and was not adequately supported in his appellate brief to this Court, we decline to address it in this appeal.”). [¶14] The disposition of this case turns on the precise language used in the hearing officer’s July 12, 2019, disposition of Jorgenson’s petition for reconsideration. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Richter v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
green
2 sentences2020Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 150, ¶ 21 , 786 N.W.2d 716 (“Because this issue was not raised before the hearing officer, was not specifically stated in his specifications of error in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4), and was not adequately supported in his appellate brief to this Court, we decline to address it in this appeal.”). [¶14] The disposition of this case turns on the precise language used in the hearing officer’s July 12, 2019, disposition of Jorgenson’s petition for reconsideration. 2020Dep’t of Transp., 2010 ND 150, ¶ 21 , 786 N.W.2d 716 (“Because this issue was not raised before the hearing officer, was not specifically stated in his specifications of error in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4), and was not adequately supported in his appellate brief to this Court, we decline to address it in this appeal.”). [¶14] The disposition of this case turns on the precise language used in the hearing officer’s July 12, 2019, disposition of Jorgenson’s petition for reconsideration. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| Painte v. Director, Dep't of Transportation green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Pace green | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| Kasowski v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation neutral | 2 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Erickson green | 2 | 2011–2011 |
| City of West Fargo v. Hawkins green | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Kacalek green | 2 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Whitman green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Lee v. North Dakota Department of Transportation neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Lee v. N.D. Department of Transportation neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Ebach v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Schoon v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. O'Connor green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Maher v. North Dakota Department of Transportation green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Pavek v. Moore neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Dawson v. North Dakota Department of Transportation neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| City of Devils Lake v. Grove green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Dawson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Baxter neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| City of Dickinson v. Schank neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Baxter green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.