N.D. Cent. Code » Chapter t28c32
North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-06 (2026)

Force and effect of rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Upon becoming effective, rules have the force and effect of law until amended or repealed by the agency or commission, declared invalid by a final court decision, suspended or found to be void by the administrative rules committee, or determined repealed by the legislative council because the authority for adoption of the rules is repealed or transferred to another agency.

\n

28-32-07. Deadline for rules to implement statutory change. Any rule change, including a creation, amendment, or repeal, made to implement a statutory change must be adopted and filed with the legislative council within nine months of the effective date of the statutory change. If an agency or the commission needs additional time for the rule change, a request for additional time must be made to the legislative council. The legislative council may extend the time within which the agency or commission must adopt the rule change if the request by the agency or commission is supported by evidence that the agency or commission needs more time through no deliberate fault of its own.

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Madison v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Madison v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 1993). · cites it 22× “The district court concluded that “[a] simple statement that the rules of evidence are waived without more does not satisfy [NDCC § 28-32-06].” However, because “the Department’s waiver of the rules of evidence [did not] result[] in unfair prejudice to [Madison],” the court…”
Singha v. North Dakota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1998 ND 42 (N.D. 1998). · cites it 8× “3 (Pre-hearing conference); 28-32-09 (Subpoenas); 28-32-11 (Administration of oaths); 28-32-11.”
City of Fargo v. Stutlien, 505 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1993). · cites it 8× “1993), however, we recently held the Department of Transportation's "institutional noncompliance" with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06, regarding waiver of the rules of evidence at an administrative hearing, warranted reversal of a license revocation where "[e]xcept for Madison's fear of…”
Med. Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 4× “See N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06(2) (evidentiary rules of privilege apply to all stages of an administrative proceeding); N.”
State Ex Rel. Clayburgh v. Am. West Cmty. Promotions, Inc., 2002 ND 98 (N.D. 2002). · cites it 4× “2-19 ("commissioner may prescribe all rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, necessary and advisable for its detailed administration and to effectuate the purposes"); N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06 ("Upon becoming effective, rules have the force and…”
Kobilansky v. Liffrig, 358 N.W.2d 781 (N.D. 1984). · cites it 4× “An administrative agency, or any person conducting an investigation or hearing for it, may waive the usual common-law or statutory rules of evidence if such waiver is necessary to ascertain the substantial rights of all the parties to the proceeding, but only evidence of…”
Knudson v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 4× “§ 28-32-06. Even if the Rules of Evidence are waived, a hearing officer may, with or without a proper objection, exclude *317 objectionable evidence that is “irrelevant, immaterial, unduly repetitious, or excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of…”
S & S Landscaping Co. v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 541 N.W.2d 80 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 8× “NDCC §§ 28-32-06, 28-32-07. It also provides for hearing officers to oversee hearings.”
Bieber v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp. Dir., 509 N.W.2d 64 (N.D. 1993). · cites it 6× “An administrative agency, or any person conducting proceedings for it, may waive application of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence if a waiver is necessary to ascertain the substantial rights of a party to the proceeding, but only relevant evidence shall be admitted.”
Howes v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 429 N.W.2d 730 (N.D. 1988). · cites it 4× “But, at a *742 trial-type hearing, the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, fairly applied, requires that a claimant be "afforded the same opportunity to present evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses as is permitted under section 28-32-06." NDCC 28-32-05(5). NDCC…”
Gramling v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 303 N.W.2d 323 (N.D. 1981). · cites it 4× “While this rule has been stated in conjunction with hearings before a trial court, we believe the rationale of the rule is equally applicable to formal hearings before the Bureau as Section 28-32-06, N.D.C.C., provides that the admissibility of evidence shall be determined in…”
State, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad, 2012 ND 242 (N.D. 2012). · cites it 4× “Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06, the administrative rule had “the force and effect of law until amended or repealed by the agency, declared invalid by a final court decision, suspended or found to be void by the administrative rules committee, or determined repealed by the legislative…”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-06(1) — 10 cases
Bieber v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp. Dir., 509 N.W.2d 64 (N.D. 1993). “An administrative agency, or any person conducting proceedings for it, may waive application of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence if a waiver is necessary to ascertain the substantial rights of a party to the proceeding, but only relevant evidence shall be admitted.”
Madison v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 503 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 1993). “The district court concluded that “[a] simple statement that the rules of evidence are waived without more does not satisfy [NDCC § 28-32-06].” However, because “the Department’s waiver of the rules of evidence [did not] result[] in unfair prejudice to [Madison],” the court…”
Maher v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 539 N.W.2d 300 (N.D. 1995).
Peterson v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 518 N.W.2d 690 (N.D. 1994).
Knudson v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995). “§ 28-32-06. Even if the Rules of Evidence are waived, a hearing officer may, with or without a proper objection, exclude *317 objectionable evidence that is “irrelevant, immaterial, unduly repetitious, or excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of…”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-06(2) — 6 cases
Med. Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995). “See N.D.C.C. § 28-32-06(2) (evidentiary rules of privilege apply to all stages of an administrative proceeding); N.”
N. States Power Co. v. North Dakota Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 502 N.W.2d 240 (N.D. 1993).
Stenvold v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 197 (N.D. 2006).
Knudson v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995). “§ 28-32-06. Even if the Rules of Evidence are waived, a hearing officer may, with or without a proper objection, exclude *317 objectionable evidence that is “irrelevant, immaterial, unduly repetitious, or excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds, or on the basis of…”
S & S Landscaping Co. v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 541 N.W.2d 80 (N.D. 1995). “NDCC §§ 28-32-06, 28-32-07. It also provides for hearing officers to oversee hearings.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-06(3) — 1 case
Singha v. North Dakota State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 1998 ND 42 (N.D. 1998). “3 (Pre-hearing conference); 28-32-09 (Subpoenas); 28-32-11 (Administration of oaths); 28-32-11.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.