North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 40-22-43 (2026)

Defects and irregularities in improvement proceedings are not fatal

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Defects and irregularities in any proceedings had or to be had under this chapter relating to municipal improvements by the special assessment method, when the proceedings are for a lawful purpose and are unaffected by fraud and do not violate any constitutional limitation or restriction, shall not invalidate such proceedings, and no action shall be commenced or maintained and no defense or counterclaim in any action shall be recognized in the courts of this state founded on any such defects or irregularities in such proceedings, unless commenced within thirty days of the adoption of the resolution of the governing board awarding the sale of warrants to finance the improvement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Serenko v. City of Wilton, 1999 ND 88 (N.D. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Serenko v. City of Wilton, 1999 ND 88 (N.D. 1999). · cites it 16× “We conclude the City’s failure to publish a complete map of the special assessment district did not violate the due process rights of the landowners, and any action by the landowners to invalidate the assessments for failure to follow statutory procedural requirements was barred…”

Hector v. City of Fargo, 2014 ND 53 (N.D. 2014). · cites it 6× “We considered the landowners’ challenge in the context of N.D.C.C. § 40-22-43, which authorizes an action to challenge defects and irregularities in proceedings governing the creation of an improvement district under N.”

Paving Dist. 476 Grp., SPCM, LLC v. City of Minot, 2017 ND 176 (N.D. 2017). · cites it 53× “We affirm, concluding the City’s alleged failure to give the landowners notice of the full extent of the proposed improvements did not violate the landowners’ constitutional due process rights and the landowners’ action to invalidate the assessments for failure to follow…”

Rasse v. City of Marshall, 18 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “081 (1987); New York — thirty days after affirmance of final assessment roll — N.”

Kouba v. FEBCO, Inc., 1999 ND 84 (N.D. 1999). · cites it 16× “We conclude the City’s failure to publish a complete map of the special assessment district did not violate the due process rights of the landowners, and any action by the landowners to invalidate the assessments for failure to follow statutory procedural requirements was barred…”

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.