Gadeco, LLC v. Industrial Commission, 830 N.W.2d 535

Gadeco LLC was invited to participate in the Coyote #1-32H well; the July 8, 2009 invitation described surface location, depth, and costs and stated a 30-day response deadline.
Slawson later sent a July 15, 2009 notice changing the surface location and the estimated spud date, while asserting the completion location and costs remained substantially the same.
Gadeco signed and paid its share of costs on August 19, 2009, but Slawson returned the check noting the 30-day election period had expired August 10, 2009.
In November 2009, Slawson sought a risk penalty; the Commission pooled interests and imposed a 200% penalty against Gadeco as a nonparticipating owner.
The district court reversed, and on appeal this Court reversed that reversal and remanded for findings; on remand, the Commission again found Slawson’s invitation compliant and Gadeco untimely in election.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the invitation complied with § 43-02-03-16.3(1) (April 1, 2010).	Gadeco argues changes to location, costs, and spud date invalidated the invitation.	Slawson/Commission contend the invitation allowed flexibility and did not require a new invitation.	No; invitation satisfied the rule and changes were informational and not material.
Whether changes to the surface location, estimated costs, and spud date required a new invitation.	Gadeco asserts material changes necessitated a new invitation.	Commission found changes immaterial or insubstantial.	Changes were insubstantial; did not require a new invitation.
Whether the 30-day election deadline is mandatory.	Gadeco contends some flexibility exists; 30 days should be treated as non-mandatory.	The rule uses 'must' and is mandatory to protect cost planning.	The 30-day deadline is mandatory.
What standard governs appellate review of Commission findings and conclusions?	Gadeco relies on substantial evidence review.	Standard balances deference to Commission with statutory review.	Review applies the substantial-credible-evidence standard; law questions are fully reviewable.

Gadeco LLC v. Industrial Comm’n, 812 N.W.2d 405 (North Dakota 2012) (principal controlling case on invitation requirements and remand for findings)
Hystad v. Indus. Comm’n, 389 N.W.2d 590 (North Dakota 1986) (standards for deference to Commission findings on review)
Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 804 N.W.2d 184 (North Dakota 2011) (regulatory interpretation and standard of review guidance)
State v. Dimmler, 456 N.W.2d 297 (North Dakota 1990) (retroactivity/controlling date considerations in regulatory analysis)
Federal Land Bank of St Paul v. Waltz, 423 N.W.2d 799 (North Dakota 1988) (interpretation of mandatory language in regulatory provisions)