1. a. In a case in which land is required for public use, the person or the person's agents in charge of the use may survey and locate the land after providing the owner on the tax list a written notice of intent to survey. The notice must contain the name, proposed completion date, type, proposed route or location of the project associated with the survey, nature of the work the person in charge of the public use intends to complete, and the name, telephone number, physical address, and mailing address of the person in charge of the public use.
b. The person in charge of the public use shall deliver the notice to the owner on the tax list through certified mail. The person in charge of the public use may not survey the land until thirty days after delivery of the notice, unless the owner consents to an earlier survey date. If the person in charge of the public use fails to survey the land within ninety days of delivery of the notice, the person shall deliver a new notice of intent to survey through certified mail. A survey conducted under a subsequently issued notice of intent to survey must be conducted in accordance with the timeline established under this subdivision.
2. The survey and location of the condemner's project must be located in the manner which will be compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury and subject to section 32-15-21.
3. The person in charge of the public use may enter upon the land and make examinations, surveys, and maps of the land in accordance with subsection 1, and the entry does not constitute a claim for relief in favor of the owner of the land except for injuries resulting from negligence, wantonness, or malice.
Notes of Decisions
All. Pipeline L.P. v. Smith, 2013 ND 117 (N.D. 2013).
· cites it 24× “[¶ 1] Leonard and lone Smith appeal from an order denying their motion for supplemental findings or for reconsideration of an order granting Alliance Pipeline’s petition under N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06 to enter the Smiths’ land for examinations and surveys.”
Square Butte Elec. Coop. v. Hilken, 244 N.W.2d 519 (N.D. 1976).
· cites it 4× “We also held that whether the specific land sought to be surveyed was "compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury," Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C., was an issue that would not ripen prior to the commencement of an eminent domain action.”
2015 Application for Permit to Enter Land, 2016 ND 165 (N.D. 2016).
· cites it 20× “81(a), Table A. These special statutory proceedings “are excluded from [the] rules to the extent they are inconsistent or in conflict with the procedure and practice provided by these rules.”
Minnkota Power Coop., Inc. v. Anderson, 2012 ND 105 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 4× “[¶ 5] In its petition, Minnkota sought and was granted access to appellants’ property under N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06, which provides: In all cases when land is required for public use, the person or corporation, or the person’s or corporation’s agents, in charge of such use may…”
Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Behm, 2019 ND 139 (N.D. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Although the particular property sought to be condemned "must be located in the manner which will be compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury," N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06, Behm has not demonstrated how MDU erred in weighing those interests.”
City of Medora v. Golberg, 1997 ND 190 (N.D. 1997).
· cites it 2× “[¶ 15] The Golbergs and Schneider also argue the claimed public use is not compatible with the greatest public benefit and the least private injury.”
SCS Carbon Transp. v. Malloy, et al., 2024 ND 109 (N.D. 2024).
· cites it 18× “Summit’s petitions requested a court order confirming its right under N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06 (the “entry statute”) to enter the lands to conduct pre-condemnation surveys and examinations.”
Square Butte Elec. Coop. v. Dohn, 219 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 1974).
· cites it 4× “Gene Hilken, for the purpose of making surveys, soil testing and ground-resisting measurements, pursuant to Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C. In the affidavit supporting the motion it is stated: “1.”
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.