Guardianship/Conservatorship of G.L.
2011 ND 10
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Martin was charged with maintaining a public nuisance under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-15 (criminal).
- On the same day, the State filed a civil nuisance action seeking an injunction.
- The district court issued an injunction in February 2010.
- Martin moved to dismiss the criminal action, arguing § 42-01-07 allows only one remedy.
- The district court denied the motion, ruling remedies may be pursued concurrently.
- Martin conditionally pled guilty while reserving appellate rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 42-01-07 permit multiple remedies for a nuisance? | Martin argues remedies are mutually exclusive due to the 'or'. | Martin argues only one remedy may be pursued. | No; remedies may be pursued concurrently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sauby v. City of Fargo, 747 N.W.2d 65 (N.D. 2008) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning and context)
- Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 772 N.W.2d 582 (N.D. 2009) (literal meaning and remedial construction)
- Christl v. Swanson, 609 N.W.2d 70 (N.D. 2000) (disjunctive meaning of 'or' in statutes)
- Sloven v. Olson, 98 N.W.2d 115 (N.D. 1959) (or generally indicates an alternative)
- State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 828 (N.D. 2006) (statutory interpretation; remedial purposes)
- Morton County Soc. Serv. Bd. v. Cramer, 780 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2010) (remedial statute; liberal construction)