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.
9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1985Therefore, drainage of surface waters complies with the reasonable-use rule if: “(a) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage; “(b) If reasonable care be taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the land receiving the burden; “(c) If the utility or benefit accruing to the land drained reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and “(d) If, where practicable, it is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or if, in the absence of a practicable natura 1985Thus stated, the reasonable-use rule is essentially a tort concept [Young v. Hamilton, supra], and insofar as fundamental differences are concerned there seems to be no real distinction between a case where natural drainage of surface water is interfered with so as to damage someone’s property and a case where damage is caused by fumes, noise vibrations, or other tortious acts. | 3 | 5 |
Martin v. Weckerlygreen2 sentences2013See Martin v. Weckerly , 364 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1985): The granting of injunctive relief is equitable in nature and rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. 2013Weckerly , 364 N.W.2d at 94-95 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Diemert v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1985See Diemert v. Johnson, 299 N.W.2d 546 (N.D.1980). 1983See Diemert v. Johnson, 299 N.W.2d 546 (N.D.1980). | 2 | 2 |
Jacobsen v. Pedersengreen2 sentences1983Specifically, this Court stated: “We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply.” Jacobsen v. Pedersen, supra at 7.” Thus, our initial consideration in the instant case is whether or not NDCC § 61-01-22 is applicable. 1972The defendant simply contends that the landowners in'the vicinity of where the ditch was constructed all consented to the construction of the ditch through a petition that was filed with the township board and county commissioners, and that the water that was drained out of Goose Lake was directed into a natural drainway and under the reasonable use doctrine that this court adopted in the case of Jacobsen v. Pedersen, 190 N.W.2d 1 , this was a permissible drainage. | 1 | 4 |
Enderson v. Kelehangreen2 sentences1985Therefore, drainage of surface waters complies with the reasonable-use rule if: “(a) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage; “(b) If reasonable care be taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the land receiving the burden; “(c) If the utility or benefit accruing to the land drained reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and “(d) If, where practicable, it is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or if, in the absence of a practicable natura 1985Therefore, drainage of surface waters complies with the reasonable-use rule if: “(a) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage; “(b) If reasonable care be taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the land receiving the burden; “(c) If the utility or benefit accruing to the land drained reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and “(d) If, where practicable, it is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or if, in the absence of a practicable natura | 1 | 3 |
Henderson v. Hinesgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Martin v. Weckerly, 364 N.W.2d 93, 94 (N.D.1985) (stating “[t]he reasonable-use rule is applied by courts in reconciling conflicting uses of surface water and the land over which it flows” and one’s use of property “must be reasonable so as not to cause unnecessary injury to others”); Henderson v. Hines, 48 N.D. 152, 159 , 183 N.W. 531, 534 (1921) (holding that, with regard to surface waters, a landowner has the right to use his own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another). 2000See, e.g., Martin v. Weckerly, 364 N.W.2d 93, 94 (N.D.1985) (stating “[t]he reasonable-use rule is applied by courts in reconciling conflicting uses of surface water and the land over which it flows” and one’s use of property “must be reasonable so as not to cause unnecessary injury to others”); Henderson v. Hines, 48 N.D. 152, 159 , 183 N.W. 531, 534 (1921) (holding that, with regard to surface waters, a landowner has the right to use his own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong v. Francis Corp.
green
2 sentences1983Specifically, this Court stated: “We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply.” Jacobsen v. Pedersen, supra at 7.” Thus, our initial consideration in the instant case is whether or not NDCC § 61-01-22 is applicable. 1983Specifically, this Court stated: “We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply.” Jacobsen v. Pedersen, supra at 7.” Thus, our initial consideration in the instant case is whether or not NDCC § 61-01-22 is applicable. | 3 | 1967–1983 |
Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance
green
2 sentences2013“A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance, 2001 ND 61, ¶ 6 , 623 N.W.2d 367 . 2013“A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Albrecht v. Metro Area Ambulance, 2001 ND 61, ¶ 6 , 623 N.W.2d 367 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Buri v. Ramsey
green
2 sentences2013Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, 2007 ND 12, ¶ 7 , 727 N.W.2d 270 (quoting Buri v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 65, ¶ 10 , 693 N.W.2d 619 ). [¶ 9] We have defined the reasonable use doctrine in deciding issues of surface water drainage: [I]n effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate' purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which otherwise never would have gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evaporated 2013Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, 2007 ND 12, ¶ 7 , 727 N.W.2d 270 (quoting Buri v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 65, ¶ 10 , 693 N.W.2d 619 ). [¶ 9] We have defined the reasonable use doctrine in deciding issues of surface water drainage: [I]n effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate' purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which otherwise never would have gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evaporated | 2 | 2013–2013 |
B.J. Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, LLC
green
2 sentences2013Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, 2007 ND 12, ¶ 7 , 727 N.W.2d 270 (quoting Buri v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 65, ¶ 10 , 693 N.W.2d 619 ). [¶ 9] We have defined the reasonable use doctrine in deciding issues of surface water drainage: [I]n effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate' purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which otherwise never would have gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evaporated 2013Kadrmas, Inc. v. Oxbow Energy, 2007 ND 12, ¶ 7 , 727 N.W.2d 270 (quoting Buri v. Ramsey, 2005 ND 65, ¶ 10 , 693 N.W.2d 619 ). [¶ 9] We have defined the reasonable use doctrine in deciding issues of surface water drainage: [I]n effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate' purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which otherwise never would have gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evaporated | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Jones v. Boeing Company
green
2 sentences1983Specifically, this Court stated: “We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply.” Jacobsen v. Pedersen, supra at 7.” Thus, our initial consideration in the instant case is whether or not NDCC § 61-01-22 is applicable. 1971Jorgenson v. Stephens, 143 Neb. 528 , 10 N.W.2d 337 .” We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply. | 2 | 1971–1983 |
Nilson v. Markestad
green
2 sentences1985Nilson v. Markestad, supra; Young v. Hamilton, supra. In this instance the trial court, in applying the reasonable-use rule, determined Weckerly failed to satisfy any of the four reasonable-use tests delineated above. 1985In making its factual determinations it appears the trial court balanced the benefit accruing to Weckerly’s land against the gravity of the harm to Hanson’s land [Nilson v. Markestad, supra; Young v. Hamilton, supra ], and this was a proper application of the reasonable-use rule. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Sheehan v. Flynn
green
2 sentences1971In Enderson v. Kelehan, supra, at 289 , the rule is stated as follows: “As promulgated in the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 , 26 L.R.A. 632 , and as amplified by subsequent decisions, the rule is that in effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate purpose a landowner,acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which would otherwise have never gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evap 1971In Enderson v. Kelehan, supra, at 289 , the rule is stated as follows: “As promulgated in the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 , 26 L.R.A. 632 , and as amplified by subsequent decisions, the rule is that in effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate purpose a landowner,acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which would otherwise have never gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evap | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jorgenson v. Stephens
green
2 sentences1971Jorgenson v. Stephens, 143 Neb. 528 , 10 N.W.2d 337 .” We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply. 1971Jorgenson v. Stephens, 143 Neb. 528 , 10 N.W.2d 337 .” We will reaffirm the reasonable use rule that we adopted in Jones v. Boeing Company, 153 N.W.2d 897 (N.D.1967), as this rule is stated and explained in Armstrong v. Francis Corp., 20 N.J. 320 , 120 A.2d 4 , and Enderson v. Kelehan, 226 Minn. 163 , 32 N.W.2d 286 (1948), in all those factual situations where the provisions of Section 61-01-22, North Dakota Century Code, do not apply. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Erickson v. Tyler
neutral
2 sentences1971R.2d 421.” In a recent decision, Erickson v. Tyler, 186 Neb. 743 , 186 N.W.2d 123 on page 126 (1971), the state of Nebraska, without specifically stating that it has adopted the reasonable use rule, stated: “Surface water is a common enemy, and the owner of real estate in the interest of good husbandry and in the absence of negligence or evidence of diversion to the injury of the lower landowner, may accelerate its flow in the natural course of drainage without liability to the lower owner. 1971R.2d 421.” In a recent decision, Erickson v. Tyler, 186 Neb. 743 , 186 N.W.2d 123 on page 126 (1971), the state of Nebraska, without specifically stating that it has adopted the reasonable use rule, stated: “Surface water is a common enemy, and the owner of real estate in the interest of good husbandry and in the absence of negligence or evidence of diversion to the injury of the lower landowner, may accelerate its flow in the natural course of drainage without liability to the lower owner. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Mulder v. Tague
green
1 sentence1971In Enderson v. Kelehan, supra, at 289 , the rule is stated as follows: “As promulgated in the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 , 26 L.R.A. 632 , and as amplified by subsequent decisions, the rule is that in effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate purpose a landowner,acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which would otherwise have never gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evap | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.