North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 28-32-49 (2026)

Review in supreme court

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

The judgment of the district court in an appeal from an order or rulemaking action of an administrative agency or the commission may be reviewed in the supreme court on appeal in the same manner as provided in section 28-32-46 or 28-32-47, except that the appeal to the supreme court must be taken within sixty days after the service of the notice of entry of judgment in the district court. Any party of record, including the agency or commission, may take an appeal from the final judgment of the district court to the supreme court. If an appeal from the judgment of the district court is taken by an agency or the commission, the agency or commission may not be required to pay a docket fee or file a bond for costs or equivalent security.\n\n Page No. 24 28-32-50. Actions against administrative agencies - Attorney's fees and costs. 1. In any civil judicial proceeding involving as adverse parties an administrative agency and a party not an administrative agency or an agent of an administrative agency, the court must award the party not an administrative agency reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the court finds in favor of that party and, in the case of a final agency order, determines that the administrative agency acted without substantial justification. 2. This section applies to an administrative or civil judicial proceeding brought by a party not an administrative agency against an administrative agency for judicial review of a final agency order, or for judicial review pursuant to this chapter of the legality of agency rulemaking action or a rule adopted by an agency as a result of the rulemaking action being appealed. 3. Any attorney's fees and costs awarded pursuant to this section must be paid from funds available to the administrative agency the final order, rulemaking action, or rule of which was reviewed by the court. The court may withhold all or part of the attorney's fees from any award if the court finds the administrative agency's action, in the case of a final agency order, was substantially justified or that special circumstances exist which make the award of all or a portion of the attorney's fees unjust. 4. This section does not alter the rights of a party to collect any fees under other applicable law. 5. In any civil judicial proceeding involving adverse parties to an appeal or enforcement action involving an environmental permit issued under chapter 23.1-04, 23.1-06, 23.1-08, or 61-28 in which two or more of the adverse parties are not an administrative agency or an agent of an administrative agency, the court may award the prevailing nonagency party reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the court finds in favor of that party and determines that the nonprevailing nonagency party acted without substantial justification, or on the basis of claims or allegations that are factually unsupported. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs if the court determines that the nonprevailing nonagency party's claims or allegations are frivolous as provided in section 28-26-01. If the appeal or civil judicial proceeding covered by this subsection involves multiple claims or allegations, the court may apportion attorney's fees and costs in proportion to the time reasonably spent by a prevailing party relating to claims pursued by the nonprevailing party that were frivolous, factually unsupported, or without substantial justification.

\n

28-32-51. Witnesses - Immunity. If any person objects to testifying or producing evidence, documentary or otherwise, at any proceeding before an administrative agency, claiming a privilege against self-incrimination, but is directed to testify or produce evidence pursuant to the written approval of the attorney general, that person must comply with the direction but no testimony or evidence compelled from that person, after a valid claim of privilege against self-incrimination has been made, may be used against that person in any criminal proceeding subjecting that person to a penalty or forfeiture. No person testifying at any proceeding before an administrative agency may be exempted from prosecution and punishment for perjury or giving a false statement, or for contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing, or in failing to produce, evidence pursuant to direction given under this section.

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 205 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Gray v. North Dakota Game & Fish Dept., 2005 ND 204 (N.D. 2005).
Gray v. North Dakota Game & Fish Dept., 2005 ND 204 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 12× “Gray's appeal to this Court is timely under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49 and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a).”
Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 2004 ND 54 (N.D. 2004). · cites it 8× “The notice of appeal from the administrative agency decision to the district court was properly filed within seven days under N.”
Fossum v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2014 ND 47 (N.D. 2014). · cites it 12× “Fossum filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court judgment under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49. This Court has jurisdiction under N.”
Paul v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2002 ND 96 (N.D. 2002). · cites it 8× “[¶ 5] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. §§ 27-05-06, 65-10-01, and 28-32-15, which, effective August 1, 2001, is codified at 28-32-42.”
Bachmeier v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2003 ND 63 (N.D. 2003). · cites it 10× “4(a) and N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49. This Court has jurisdiction under N.”
Jones v. North Dakota State Bd. of Med. Examiners-Investigative Panel B, 2005 ND 22 (N.D. 2005). · cites it 12× “Jones shall pay to the Board the reasonable and actual costs of the investigation and prosecution of this case, including reasonable attorney's fees.”
Koehly v. Levi, 2016 ND 202 (N.D. 2016). · cites it 6× “Koehly’s appeal to this Court was timely under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49. This Court has jurisdiction under N.”
Workforce Saf. & Ins. v. Auck, 2010 ND 126 (N.D. 2010). · cites it 6× “4(a) and N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49. This Court has jurisdiction under N.”
J.P. v. Stark Cnty. Soc. Servs. Bd., 2007 ND 140 (N.D. 2007). · cites it 6× “’s appeal to this Court is timely under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-49 and N.D.R.App.P. 4(a).”
Bruder v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins. Fund, 2009 ND 23 (N.D. 2009). · cites it 6× “The court also concluded WSI had acted without justification in denying benefits and therefore awarded costs and attorney fees to Bruder under N.”
Simons v. State, Dep't of Human Servs., 2011 ND 190 (N.D. 2011). · cites it 6× “” The Department’s executive director amended certain parts of the recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, and issued a final order determining that Ben Simons had committed abuse of the child and that services were required. Ben Simons appealed to the…”
Drayton v. Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2008 ND 178 (N.D. 2008). · cites it 6× “[¶ 8] Drayton’s appeal to the district court was timely, and the district court had jurisdiction under N.”
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.