If an application for leave to offer additional testimony, written statements, documents,
exhibits, or other evidence is made to the court in which an appeal from a determination of an
administrative agency is pending, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the
additional evidence is relevant and material and that there were reasonable grounds for the
failure to offer the evidence in the hearing or proceeding, or that the evidence is relevant and
material to the issues involved and was rejected or excluded by the agency, the court may order
that the additional evidence be taken, heard, and considered by the agency on terms and
conditions as the court may deem proper. After considering the additional evidence, the
administrative agency may amend or reject its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order and
shall file with the court a transcript of the additional evidence with its new or amended findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and order, if any, which constitute a part of the record with the court.
28-32-46. Scope of and procedure on appeal from determination of administrative
agency.
A judge of the district court must review an appeal from the determination of an
administrative agency based only on the record filed with the court. After a hearing, the filing of
briefs, or other disposition of the matter as the judge may reasonably require, the court must
affirm the order of the agency unless it finds that any of the following are present:
1. The order is not in accordance with the law.
2. The order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant.
3. The provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before
the agency.
4. The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.
5. The findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
6. The conclusions of law and order of the agency are not supported by its findings of
fact.
7. The findings of fact made by the agency do not sufficiently address the evidence
presented to the agency by the appellant.
8. The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency's
rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an
administrative law judge.
If the order of the agency is not affirmed by the court, it must be modified or reversed, and the
case shall be remanded to the agency for disposition in accordance with the order of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Stenvold v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2006 ND 197 (N.D. 2006).
· cites it 16× “Stenvold did not move to supplement the record under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45. [¶11] We have previously addressed the precise issue raised in this case in Wright v.”
Rist v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2003 ND 113 (N.D. 2003).
· cites it 4× “We conclude this explanation does not provide “reasonable grounds for the failure to offer evidence in the hearing,” and therefore, the standard for remanding the matter for consideration of additional evidence under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45 has not been met. IV [¶ 18] We reverse the…”
Miller v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2004 ND 155 (N.D. 2004).
· cites it 4× “However, sufficient concerns are raised in this case regarding the potential of direct or indirect ex parte communications to implicate N.”
In Re Beckler, 2005 ND 33 (N.D. 2005).
· cites it 8× “[¶ 15] Supplementation of the record after an appeal has been taken from an administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45 (formerly codified at N.”
Beckler v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 692 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 2005).
· cites it 8× “[¶ 15] Supplementation of the record after an appeal has been taken from an administrative order is governed by N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45 (formerly codified at N.”
Von Ruden v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins. Fund, 2008 ND 166 (N.D. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Section 28-32-45, N.D.C.C., allows a party to apply to a court where an administrative appeal is pending for leave to offer additional evidence, however, if the court grants leave, it must remand the case to the administrative agency for the agency to consider the evidence.”
Grina v. Job Serv. N. Dakota, 2019 ND 24 (N.D. 2019).
· cites it 10× “from a determination of an administrative agency is pending, and it is shown *652 to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is relevant and material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to offer the evidence in the hearing or proceeding, or…”
Christofferson v. North Dakota Dep't of Health, 2007 ND 199 (N.D. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” The district court held the affidavits of Chris-tofferson’s neighbors inadmissible as additional or excluded evidence under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45. The district court ultimately affirmed the ALJ’s decision finding that under N.”
Schlittenhart v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 2015 ND 179 (N.D. 2015).
· cites it 4× “We explained “the court did not expressly retain jurisdiction for the Bureau to receive and consider additional evidence under NDCC 28-32-18 [presently at N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45].” Siewert , at 466 n.”
Frith v. Saf., 2014 ND 93 (N.D. 2014).
· cites it 4× “With regard to an application to offer additional or excluded evidence, N.D.C.C. § 28-32-45 provides, in part: If an application for leave to offer additional testimony, written statements, documents, exhibits, or other evidence is made to the court in which an appeal from a…”
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.