51 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc.green2 sentences2019Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc. , 531 N.W.2d 289 , 296 (N.D. 1995). 2019Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289, 296 (N.D. 1995). | 3 | 4 |
Haman v. City of Surreygreen2 sentences2012Robertson’s continued validity was called into question in Haman v. City of Surrey, 418 N.W.2d 605, 607 (N.D.1988), when the Court noted that our standard of review of a decision approving special assessments had changed since Robertson, from the broad, unlimited trial de novo employed in Robertson in 1914 to the extremely limited, deferential review mandated by the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. [¶ 17] Finally, we are mindful that the underlying urban landscape in our cities is far different today than it was in 1914. 1999E.g., Haman v. City of Surrey, 418 N.W.2d 605, 607 (N.D.1988). | 3 | 3 |
Lindteigen v. City of Bismarckgreen2 sentences2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck , 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County , 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D. 1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners , 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D. 1989). 2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck , 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County , 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D. 1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners , 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D. 1989). | 2 | 4 |
Kilbourn v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W 2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W | 2 | 2 |
Patchak v. Zinkegreen2 sentences2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W 2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W | 2 | 2 |
Nord v. Guygreen2 sentences2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W 2018See Patchak v. Zinke , 138 S. Ct. 897, 904-05 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168, 191 (1881)) (“Each branch ‘exercise[s] . . . the powers appropriate to its own department,’ and no branch can ‘encroach upon the powers confided to the others.’”). [¶45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a “delegation.” Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321, 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W.2d at 404 (improper delegation). | 2 | 2 |
County of Stutsman v. State Historical Society of North Dakotagreen2 sentences2018See Patchak v. Zinke , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 897 , 904-05, 200 L.Ed.2d 92 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168 , 191, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881) ) ("Each branch 'exercise[s] ... the powers appropriate to its own department,' and no branch can 'encroach upon the powers confided to the others.' "). [¶ 45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a "delegation." Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321 , 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W 2018See Patchak v. Zinke , 138 S. Ct. 897, 904-05 (2018) (quoting Kilbourn v. Thompson , 103 U.S. 168, 191 (1881)) (“Each branch ‘exercise[s] . . . the powers appropriate to its own department,’ and no branch can ‘encroach upon the powers confided to the others.’”). [¶45] Our decisions distinguish between proper and improper delegations of power to executive branch agencies but refer to both as a “delegation.” Compare County of Stutsman v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota , 371 N.W.2d 321, 329 (N.D. 1985) (proper delegation), with Nord , 141 N.W.2d at 404 (improper delegation). | 2 | 2 |
Marcus v. Department of Income Maintenancegreen2 sentences2003Probate of Marcus , 509 A.2d at 5, n.4 . [¶13] Recognizing the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, our standard of review in cases such as this does not allow us to make independent findings of fact or to substitute our judgment for that of the agency factfinder. 2003Probate of Marcus, 509 A.2d at 5, n. 4 . [¶ 13] Recognizing the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, our standard of review in cases such as this does not allow us to make independent findings of fact or to substitute our judgment for that of the agency factfinder. | 2 | 2 |
National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County Ex Rel. Ransom County Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck , 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County , 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D. 1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners , 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D. 1989). 2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck, 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County, 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D.1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners, 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissionersgreen2 sentences2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck , 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County , 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D. 1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners , 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D. 1989). 2000See Lindteigen v. City of Bismarck, 1997 ND 123, ¶ 6 , 565 N.W.2d 47 ; National Sun Industries, Inc. v. Ransom County, 474 N.W.2d 502, 506 (N.D.1991); Ulvedal v. Board of County Commissioners, 434 N.W.2d 707, 709 (N.D.1989). | 2 | 2 |
Lapp v. Reeder Public School District No. 3green2 sentences1998No. 3, 544 N.W.2d 164, 168 (N.D.1996) (affirming the refusal to amend judgment to increase reimbursement because litigants did not follow appropriate administrative procedures). [¶ 14] The purpose of requiring exhaustion of remedies has its basis in the separation of powers doctrine. 1998No. 3 , 544 N.W.2d 164, 168 (N.D. 1996) (affirming the refusal to amend judgment to increase reimbursement because litigants did not follow appropriate administrative procedures). [¶14] The purpose of requiring exhaustion of remedies has its basis in the separation of powers doctrine. | 2 | 2 |
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkingreen2 sentences1991Joshua's initial request for release of the settlement funds should not involve the Department and his mother's claim for AFDC benefits cannot, under the separation of powers doctrine, Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979), be determined in a declaratory judgment proceeding. 1991Joshua’s initial request for release of the settlement funds should not involve the Department and his mother's claim for AFDC benefits cannot, under the separation of powers doctrine, Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D.1979), be determined in a declaratory judgment proceeding. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Hansongreen2 sentences2006For example, in Hanson, 558 N.W.2d at 611-12 , the defendant made a constitutional challenge to a statutory provision granting prosecutors reciprocal discovery and thereafter the district court ruled the statutory provision violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. [¶ 11] Our jurisprudence for deciding constitutional issues requires an orderly process for the development of constitutional claims, which, unlike in Hanson , was not followed in this case. 2006For example, in Hanson , 558 N.W.2d at 611-12 , the defendant made a constitutional challenge to a statutory provision granting prosecutors reciprocal discovery and thereafter the district court ruled the statutory provision violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. [¶11] Our jurisprudence for deciding constitutional issues requires an orderly process for the development of constitutional claims, which, unlike in Hanson , was not followed in this case. | 1 | 3 |
Dobervich v. Central Cass Public School District No. 17green2 sentences1981He notes that these cases were cited by this court in Dobervich, supra. While these cases involving administrative agencies were cited in Dobervich , they were cited for the principle that under the doctrine of separation of powers in Section 94 of the North Dakota Constitution, a court must exercise restraint in reviewing nonjudieial functions and should not substitute its judgment for that of the board. 1980No. 17, 283 N.W.2d 187, 193 (N.D.1979), that under the doctrine of separation of powers and § 94 of the North Dakota Constitution, a position of restraint is preferred for the courts. | 1 | 2 |
Hoskins v. Mariclegreen2 sentences2021In Hoskins v. Markel, the Kentucky Supreme Court addressed a trial court’s rejection of a plea agreement between the Commonwealth of Kentucky and two defendants. 150 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Ky. 2004). 2021Once the court obtains jurisdiction over an action, it also obtains the “inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary to the administration of justice in the case before it.” Hoskins, 150 S.W.3d at 17 . | 1 | 1 |
Soo Line Railroad Company v. City of Wiltongreen1 sentence2014Co. v. City of Wilton, 172 N.W.2d 74, 78 (N.D.1969), this Court considered a district court’s authority to review special assessments anew in conjunction with an argument that such review would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Spaeth v. Meiersgreen1 sentence2006Spaeth v. Meiers, 403 N.W.2d 392, 394 (N.D.1987) (interpreting article XI, section 26, of the North Dakota Constitution as recognizing separation of powers). [¶ 12] Requiring exhaustion of remedies under the separation of powers doctrine is particularly appropriate in this case, where the North Dakota Constitution grants the State Board of Higher Education full authority to control and administer the State’s higher education institutions. | 1 | 1 |
| Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gullickson v. Stark County Board of County Commissionersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Fargo v. Nessgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cloverdale Foods Co. v. City of Mandangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Walstadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Production Credit Ass'n of Worthington v. Van Iperengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allstate Insurance Co. v. Knutsongreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Linser v. Office of Attorney General
green
2 sentences2008We conclude the Department’s Medicaid regulations control the date of a disqualifying transfer for purposes of Minnie Makedonsky’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. [¶ 16] “Recognizing the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, our standard of review in cases such as this does not allow us to make independent findings of fact or to substitute our judgment for that of the agency fact finder.” Linser, 2003 ND 195, ¶ 11 , 672 N.W.2d 643 (citing Wagner v. Sheridan County Soc. 2008We conclude the Department’s Medicaid regulations control the date of a disqualifying transfer for purposes of Minnie Makedonsky’s eligibility for Medicaid benefits. [¶ 16] “Recognizing the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, our standard of review in cases such as this does not allow us to make independent findings of fact or to substitute our judgment for that of the agency fact finder.” Linser, 2003 ND 195, ¶ 11 , 672 N.W.2d 643 (citing Wagner v. Sheridan County Soc. | 3 | 2008–2013 |
Tooley v. Alm
green
2 sentences2016Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. 1995Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. | 2 | 1995–2016 |
TRANSPORTATION DIV. OF FARGO CHAMBER OF COM. v. Sandstrom
green
2 sentences2016Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. 1995Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. | 2 | 1995–2016 |
Olson v. Cass County
green
2 sentences2016Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. 1995Tooley, supra; Sandstrom, supra; Shark Brothers, supra; Olson, supra. Implicit in those decisions is the principle that the doctrine of separation of powers requires those who seek judicial review of administrative matters to first exhaust their administrative remedies. | 2 | 1995–2016 |
Makedonsky v. North Dakota Department of Human Services
green
2 sentences2014Dept, of Human Seros., 2008 ND 49, ¶ 16 , 746 N.W.2d 185 (citations and quotation marks omitted). “[R]ather, a court must ‘determine only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence in the record.’ ” Davenport v. Workforce Safety and Ins. 2014Dept, of Human Seros., 2008 ND 49, ¶ 16 , 746 N.W.2d 185 (citations and quotation marks omitted). “[R]ather, a court must ‘determine only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence in the record.’ ” Davenport v. Workforce Safety and Ins. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Layton School of Art & Design v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
green
2 sentences1981Comn., 82 Wis.2d 324 , 262 N.W.2d 218 (1978), in which the Wisconsin court held the delegation of certain quasi-judicial powers to an administrative agency did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Wisconsin Constitution. 1981Comn., 82 Wis.2d 324 , 262 N.W.2d 218 (1978), in which the Wisconsin court held the delegation of certain quasi-judicial powers to an administrative agency did not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Wisconsin Constitution. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Brown v. State Ex Rel. State Board of Higher Education
green
2 sentences2024State Bd. of Higher Educ., 2006 ND 60, ¶ 11 , 711 N.W.2d 194 (quoting Tracy v. Central Cass Pub. 2024State Bd. of Higher Educ., 2006 ND 60, ¶ 11 , 711 N.W.2d 194 (quoting Tracy v. Central Cass Pub. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Zerr v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance
green
1 sentence2023In Zerr, 2017 ND 175, ¶¶ 12-13 , this Court discussed the purpose for requiring exhaustion before granting declaratory relief: The purpose of requiring exhaustion of remedies has its basis in the separation of powers doctrine. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kelsh v. Jaeger
green
2 sentences2021“Except as otherwise provided in the constitution, the Legislature may not delegate legislative powers to others . . . .” Kelsh v. Jaeger, 2002 ND 53, ¶ 21 , 641 N.W.2d 100 . 2021“Except as otherwise provided in the constitution, the Legislature may not delegate legislative powers to others . . . .” Kelsh v. Jaeger, 2002 ND 53, ¶ 21 , 641 N.W.2d 100 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
McCullough v. Swanson
green
1 sentence2021“The rules must be treated respectfully, otherwise they would be considered as only advisory.” Id. (discussing the requirements of the appellate rules). [¶20] Additionally, this discretionary power embodied in the district court does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re United States of America, United States of America v. Ray Cowan and Jack Jacobsen, Wayne O. Woodruff, Special Prosecutors
green
1 sentence2021The court held the requirement does not violate the separation of powers doctrine and is a check on the executive branch’s “power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.” Id. [¶13] Although Graff and Cowan involve a court’s role in dismissing criminal charges, other courts have examined required court approval to amend criminal charges. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Cromwell
green
1 sentence2021Nonetheless, we have reviewed the memorandum referenced by Riggin and we can discern no discussion within the memorandum indicating that Legislative Council is of the opinion that the legislature violated the separation of powers doctrine through the enactment of N.D.C.C. ch. 37-17.1. [¶28] “Whether and in what manner a business shall be regulated are matters of policy for the legislative department of government to determine.” Cromwell, 9 N.W.2d at 920 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People to Save the Sheyenne River, Inc. v. North Dakota Department of Health
green
2 sentences2008People to Save the Sheyenne River, 2005 ND 104, ¶24 , 697 N.W.2d 319 . 2008People to Save the Sheyenne River, 2005 ND 104, ¶24 , 697 N.W.2d 319 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Dakota Northwestern Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Burleigh County Board of County Commissioners green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Tracy v. Central Cass Public School District green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Cooke v. University of North Dakota green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Meredith v. Ieyoub green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Haverluk green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Shark Bros., Inc. v. Cass County green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| PUBLIC SERV. COM'N v. Eighth Jud. D. Ct. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Shaw v. Burleigh County green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hillesland v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Grand Forks green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State Ex Rel. Link v. Olson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State ex rel. Josephs v. Douglass green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.