close hearing in North Dakota

2012“While the jurisdiction of an administrative agency is dependent upon the terms of a statute, these terms must be construed logically so as not to produce an absurd result.” Id. [¶ 28] Section 39-20-05(5), N.D.C.C., provides: At the close of the hearing, the hearing officer shall notify the person of the hearing officer’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision based on the findings and conclusions and shall immediately deliver to the person a copy of the decision.

2012“While the jurisdiction of an administrative agency is dependent upon the terms of a statute, these terms must be construed logically so as not to produce an absurd result.” Id. [¶28] Section 39-20-05(5), N.D.C.C., provides: At the close of the hearing, the hearing officer shall notify the person of the hearing officer’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision based on the findings and conclusions and shall immediately deliver to the person a copy of the decision .

1982H., supra , we concluded that a finding of continued deprivation could be inferred from the court's statements at the close of the hearing and from statements contained in the court's written findings.

1982H., supra, we concluded that a finding of continued deprivation could be inferred from the court’s statements at the close of the hearing and from statements contained in the court’s written findings.

2002At the close of the hearing, the trial court called for post-trial briefs addressing the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement under U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), probable cause issues, and civil dispute doctrine issues. [¶ 5] On June 21, 2001, the trial court issued a memorandum and order dismissing the charges against Perreault.

2002At the close of the hearing, the trial court called for post-trial briefs addressing the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement under U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), probable cause issues, and civil dispute doctrine issues. [¶ 5] On June 21, 2001, the trial court issued a memorandum and order dismissing the charges against Perreault.

2000After this Court stated in Hecker the trust language indicated an intent not to provide primary support for the beneficiary, the citation which followed instructed, “Compare Bohac, 424 N.W.2d 144 .” Id. at 230 . [¶ 22] A close analysis of Bohac v. Graham, 424 N.W.2d 144 (N.D.1988), a decision which the majority did not reverse in Hecker , reveals it is more analagous to the present case than Hecker .

2000After this Court stated in Hecker the trust language indicated an intent not to provide primary support for the beneficiary, the citation which followed instructed, “Compare Bohac, 424 N.W.2d 144 .” Id. at 230 . [¶ 22] A close analysis of Bohac v. Graham, 424 N.W.2d 144 (N.D.1988), a decision which the majority did not reverse in Hecker , reveals it is more analagous to the present case than Hecker .

1965The syllabus in Page v. Steinke, 60 N.D. 685 , 236 N.W. 261 , states: “Where an attachment is issued upon an affidavit stating as a ground for attachment ‘that the defendant has sold, assigned, transferred, secreted, or otherwise disposed of, or is about to sell, assign, transfer, secrete or otherwise dispose of, her property, with intent to cheat or defraud her creditors, or to hinder or delay them in the collection of their debts,’ and the existence of this ground for attachment is denied by the defendant, upon a motion to discharge the attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishin

1965The syllabus in Page v. Steinke, 60 N.D. 685 , 236 N.W. 261 , states: “Where an attachment is issued upon an affidavit stating as a ground for attachment ‘that the defendant has sold, assigned, transferred, secreted, or otherwise disposed of, or is about to sell, assign, transfer, secrete or otherwise dispose of, her property, with intent to cheat or defraud her creditors, or to hinder or delay them in the collection of their debts,’ and the existence of this ground for attachment is denied by the defendant, upon a motion to discharge the attachment, the plaintiff has the burden of establishin