1. The board shall issue a permit to operate a pharmacy, or a renewal permit, upon satisfactory proof of all of the following:
a. The pharmacy will be conducted in full compliance with existing laws and with the rules and regulations established by the board.
b. The equipment and facilities of the pharmacy are such that prescriptions can be filled accurately and properly, and United States pharmacopeia and national formulary preparations properly compounded and so that it may be operated and maintained in a manner that will not endanger public health and safety.
c. The pharmacy is equipped with proper pharmaceutical and sanitary appliances and kept in a clean, sanitary, and orderly manner.
d. The management of the pharmacy is under the personal charge of a pharmacist duly licensed under the laws of this state.
e. The applicant for such permit is qualified to conduct the pharmacy, and is a licensed pharmacist in good standing or is a partnership, each active member of which is a licensed pharmacist in good standing; a corporation or an association, the majority stock in which is owned by licensed pharmacists in good standing; or a limited liability company, the majority membership interests in which is owned by licensed pharmacists in good standing, actively and regularly employed in and responsible for the management, supervision, and operation of such pharmacy.
f. Suitable reference sources either in book or electronic data form, are available in the pharmacy or online, which might include the United States pharmacopeia and national formulary, the United States pharmacopeia dispensing information, facts and comparisons, micro medex, the American society of health-system pharmacists formulary, or other suitable references pertinent to the practice carried on in the licensed pharmacy.
2. The provisions of subdivision e of subsection 1 do not apply to:
a. The holder of a permit on July 1, 1963, if otherwise qualified to conduct the pharmacy, provided that any such permitholder that discontinues operations under such permit or fails to renew such permit upon expiration is not exempt from the provisions of subdivision e of subsection 1 as to the discontinued or lapsed permit.
b. A hospital pharmacy furnishing service only to patients in that hospital.
c. The applicant for a permit to operate a pharmacy which is a hospital, if the pharmacy for which the hospital seeks a permit to operate is a retail pharmacy that is the sole provider of pharmacy services in the community and is a retail pharmacy that was in existence before the hospital took over operations. A hospital operating a pharmacy under this subdivision may operate the pharmacy at any location in the community.
d. The applicant for a permit to operate a pharmacy which is the owner of a postgraduate medical residency training program if the pharmacy is collocated with and is run in direct conjunction with the postgraduate medical residency training program. For purposes of this subdivision, the postgraduate medical residency training program must be accredited by the accreditation council on graduate medical education or other national accrediting organization. \n 43-15-36. Board shall make rules and regulations governing permits - Prescribe equipment necessary. The rules and regulations relating to the granting, revocation, and renewal of a permit must be adopted and become effective only upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the board. The board shall prescribe the minimum of technical equipment which a pharmacy at all times must possess.\n\n Page No. 18 43-15-37. Term of permit - Renewal - Fee - Application. Repealed by omission from this code. \n 43-15-38. Failure to renew permit - When new permit granted. If an application for renewal of a permit issued for the operation or maintenance of a pharmacy in this state is not made before the first day of June of the fiscal year for which the permit was issued, the existing permit, or renewal permit, lapses and becomes null and void upon the thirtieth day of that month. A new or further renewal of a permit may be granted only:
1. Upon evidence satisfactory to the board of good and sufficient reason or excuse for failure to file an application within the time prescribed.
2. Upon payment of the regular renewal fee and an additional fee to be set by the board not to exceed two hundred dollars. \n
Notes of Decisions
Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 219 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1974).
· cites it 56× ““The exemption from the requirements of subsection 5 of Section 43-15-35 of the North Dakota Century Code of all those -who held pharmacy permits on July 1, 1963, and all hospital pharmacies creates a classification which is not reasonably necessary to effect the purpose of the…”
Hanson v. Williams Cnty., 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1986).
· cites it 7× “Applying the reasonable relation test under this presumption, we concluded that the pharmacy operating requirements of Section 43-15-35(5), N.D. C.C., did not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
Fam. Ctr. Drug Store, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 181 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1970).
· cites it 14× “, did not comply with Section 43-15-35, which requires that a registered pharmacist shall own the majority of stock of the corporation; and shall be responsible for the management, supervision, and operation of the pharmacy.”
Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 202 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1972).
· cites it 8× “Basically, the Board found that the existing facilities of the applicant did not meet the standards required by the Pharmacy Board and that the applicant failed to comply with Subsection 5 of Section 43-15-35, N.D.C.C. This subsection requires in the case of a corporate…”
Thompson v. Jaeger, 2010 ND 174 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Ill, for an initiated measure to amend N.D.C.C. § 43-15-35 to remove certain statutory provisions regarding corporate ownership and operation of a pharmacy in North Dakota.”
Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 283 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Of equal importance is that the North Dakota Supreme Court stated that it felt bound by the earlier United States Supreme Court decision in concluding that § 43-15-35(5), NDCC, violated the due process clause of *116 § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States…”
State v. Knoefler, 279 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1979).
“The United States Supreme Court in Snyder stated that the Liggett case was decided on grounds of substantive due process and was a derelict in the stream of law. The Liggett case was decided in 1928 and the Snyder case was decided in 1973.”
Cont'l Resources v. N.D. Dep't. of Env't Quality, 2019 ND 280 (N.D. 2019).
· cites it 4× “We held “the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not require deferring a decision on the interpretation of the unambiguous language of N.D.C.C. § 43-15-35 until after the administrative process has been completed.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 43-15-35(5) — 6 cases
Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 219 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1974).
““The exemption from the requirements of subsection 5 of Section 43-15-35 of the North Dakota Century Code of all those -who held pharmacy permits on July 1, 1963, and all hospital pharmacies creates a classification which is not reasonably necessary to effect the purpose of the…”
Hanson v. Williams Cnty., 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D. 1986).
“Applying the reasonable relation test under this presumption, we concluded that the pharmacy operating requirements of Section 43-15-35(5), N.D. C.C., did not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 202 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1972).
“Basically, the Board found that the existing facilities of the applicant did not meet the standards required by the Pharmacy Board and that the applicant failed to comply with Subsection 5 of Section 43-15-35, N.D.C.C. This subsection requires in the case of a corporate…”
Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 283 N.W.2d 96 (N.D. 1979).
“Of equal importance is that the North Dakota Supreme Court stated that it felt bound by the earlier United States Supreme Court decision in concluding that § 43-15-35(5), NDCC, violated the due process clause of *116 § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States…”
Fam. Ctr. Drug Store, Inc. v. North Dakota State Bd. of Pharmacy, 181 N.W.2d 738 (N.D. 1970).
“, did not comply with Section 43-15-35, which requires that a registered pharmacist shall own the majority of stock of the corporation; and shall be responsible for the management, supervision, and operation of the pharmacy.”
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.