The person presiding at a hearing shall regulate the course of the hearing in conformity with
this chapter and any rules adopted under this chapter by an administrative agency, any other
applicable laws, and any prehearing order. To the extent necessary for full disclosure of all
relevant facts and issues, the person presiding at the hearing shall afford to all parties and other
persons allowed to participate the opportunity to respond, present evidence and argument,
conduct cross-examination, and submit rebuttal evidence, except as restricted or conditioned by
a grant of intervention or by a prehearing order. A hearing may be conducted in total or in part
by making use of telephone, television, facsimile services, or other electronic means if each
participant in the hearing has an opportunity to participate in, to hear, and, if practicable, to see
the entire proceeding while it is taking place, and if such use does not substantially prejudice or
infringe on the rights and interests of any party.
Notes of Decisions
Wolfer v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2010 ND 59 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 12× “§ 28-32-35 permits hearings to be conducted telephoni-cally in some circumstances: A hearing may be conducted in total or in part by making use of telephone, television, facsimile services, or other electronic means if each participant in the hearing has an opportunity to…”
Landsiedel v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 774 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 2009).
· cites it 14× “” N.D.C.C. § 28-32-35. Thus, the Department’s hearing officers must conduct license-revocation hearings in conformity with the general requirements of N.”
St. Alexius Med. Ctr. v. N.D. Dep't of Human Servs., 2018 ND 36 (N.D. 2018).
· cites it 10× “In Landsiedel we addressed the AAPA’s permissive use of telephonic hearings and a specific prohibition about telephonic hearings provided in the statutory provisions governing Department of Transportation hearings and noted the following: Although N.D.C.C. § 28-32-35 provides…”
Baesler v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 812 N.W.2d 434 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “This Court has recently explained, however, that the hearing officer has broad discretion in setting the hearing: The Administrative Agencies Practice Act expressly directs that, in all adjudicative proceedings, “[t]he administrative agency shall designate the time and place for…”
Schweitzer v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 2009 ND 139 (N.D. 2009).
· cites it 4× “" N.D.C.C. § 28-32-35. Although the rules of evidence are more relaxed in unemployment compensation hearings, the hearing must be conducted in a "manner as to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties.”
Berger v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 795 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2011).
· cites it 2× “[¶ 7] The Administrative Agencies Practice Act expressly directs that, in all adjudicative proceedings, “[tjhe administrative agency shall designate the time and place for the hearing.”
Hoover v. NDDOT, 2024 ND 8 (N.D. 2024).
· cites it 6× “§ 39-20-05(4). He argues, however, that he was denied a fair hearing because the hearing officer never provided to him “prior to the hearing, or at the hearing, copies of the exhibits for [his] review or analysis” so he could determine if the exhibits complied with N.”
Hendrickson v. Olson, 2009 ND 16 (N.D. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-32-35, N.D.C.C., authorizes the person presiding at an administrative hearing to regulate the hearing in conformity with N.”
Grina v. Job Serv. N. Dakota, 2019 ND 24 (N.D. 2019).
· cites it 2× “[¶9] When the employer appealed the initial award of benefits to the appeals referee, Job Service provided Grina with an unemployment insurance appeals guide. This guide contained information regarding hearing preparation, including exhibit submission.”
Opp v. Off. of the North Dakota Attorney Gen. - BCI CWL Unit, 2023 ND 131 (N.D. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-32-35, N.D.C.C., which addresses procedures at the hearing, provides “the person presiding at the hearing shall afford to all parties and other persons allowed to participate the opportunity to respond, present evidence and argument, conduct cross-examination, and…”
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.