1. A judge of the district court shall review an appeal from an administrative agency's or
ethics commission's rulemaking action based only on the record filed with the court. If
an appellant requests documents to be included in the record but the agency or
commission does not include them, the court, upon application by the appellant, may
compel their inclusion. After a hearing, the filing of briefs, or other disposition of the
matter as the judge may reasonably require, the court shall affirm the rulemaking
action unless it finds that any of the following are present:
a. The provisions of this chapter have not been substantially complied with in the
rulemaking actions.
b. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is unconstitutional
on the face of the language adopted.
c. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is beyond the
scope of the agency's or commission's authority to adopt.
d. A rule published as a result of the rulemaking action appealed is on the face of
the language adopted an arbitrary or capricious application of authority granted
by statute.
2. If the rulemaking action of the agency or commission is not affirmed by the court, the
rulemaking action must be remanded to the agency or commission for disposition in
accordance with the order of the court, or the rule or a portion of the rule resulting from
the rulemaking action of the agency or commission must be declared invalid for
reasons stated by the court.
\n
28-32-48. Appeal - Stay of proceedings.
An appeal from an order or the rulemaking action of an administrative agency or the
commission does not stay the enforcement of the order or the effect of a published rule unless
the court to which the appeal is taken, upon application and after a hearing or the submission of
briefs, orders a stay. The court may impose terms and conditions for a stay of the enforcement
of the order or for a stay in the effect of a published rule. This section does not prohibit the
operation of an automatic stay upon the enforcement of an administrative order or commission
order as may be required by another statute.
\n
Notes of Decisions
Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2011 ND 194 (N.D. 2011).
· cites it 6× “1978); see N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47. Whether an administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority presents a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal.”
Kroschel v. Levi, 2015 ND 185 (N.D. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-32-46 or N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47.” Deeth , at ¶ 11. “An agency’s conclusions on questions of law are subject to full review.”
People to Save the Sheyenne River, Inc. v. North Dakota Dep't of Health, 2005 ND 104 (N.D. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In Little , at ¶¶ 12-17, we applied the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard in the predecessor to N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(4) to review an agency’s quasi-legislative rule-making function in which there was not an adjudicative proceeding with a corresponding record, and we…”
Olson v. Levi, 2015 ND 250 (N.D. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-32-46 or N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47.” Deeth , at ¶ 11. “An agency’s conclusions on questions of law are subject to full review.”
Deeth v. Dir., North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2014 ND 232 (N.D. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-32-46 or N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47. [¶ 12] The parties and the district court appear to analyze this case as if Deeth’s license was revoked for his being found in actual physical control of his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.”
State v. Baatz, 2011 ND 195 (N.D. 2011).
· cites it 2× “”); see also N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(1) (“[T]he court shall affirm the agency’s rulemaking action unless it finds that .”
Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transp., 909 N.W.2d 676 (N.D. 2018).
· cites it 2× “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.”
State v. Nickel, 806 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 2011).
· cites it 2× “”); see also N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(1) (“[T]he court shall affirm the agency’s rulemaking action unless it finds that .”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-47(1) — 2 cases
State v. Baatz, 2011 ND 195 (N.D. 2011).
“”); see also N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(1) (“[T]he court shall affirm the agency’s rulemaking action unless it finds that .”
State v. Nickel, 806 N.W.2d 155 (N.D. 2011).
“”); see also N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(1) (“[T]he court shall affirm the agency’s rulemaking action unless it finds that .”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-47(4) — 2 cases
Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2011 ND 194 (N.D. 2011).
“1978); see N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47. Whether an administrative agency has acted within its statutory authority presents a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal.”
People to Save the Sheyenne River, Inc. v. North Dakota Dep't of Health, 2005 ND 104 (N.D. 2005).
“In Little , at ¶¶ 12-17, we applied the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard in the predecessor to N.D.C.C. § 28-32-47(4) to review an agency’s quasi-legislative rule-making function in which there was not an adjudicative proceeding with a corresponding record, and we…”
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.