Hale v. Ward County
818 N.W.2d 697
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Hales appeal a district court summary judgment dismissing nuisance and takings claims against Ward County and the City of Minot.
- Property is near the law enforcement shooting range and County Road 12; another range is north of Hale property.
- Hales relied on the Gowan v. Ward County Commission findings regarding safety concerns to argue applicability to them.
- Hales sought summary judgment in 2009; County and City filed cross-motions arguing range is a sport shooting range and not a nuisance.
- District court denied some motions, then granted summary judgment for Ward County and Minot in June 2011, dismissing the amended complaint; Hale appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the law enforcement shooting range a private nuisance under NDCC 42-01-01? | Hale argues the range unreasonably interferes with private use and enjoyment of Hale property. | Ward County/Minot contend the range is a sport shooting facility and not a nuisance; evidence fails to show private nuisance. | Hale's private nuisance claim fails; lack of competent evidence supports dismissal. |
| Does the record raise a genuine issue of material fact for a public nuisance claim involving County Road 12? | Maps, photos, and testimony show bullets potentially crossing County Road 12. | Terrain and other explanations negate likelihood bullets cross the road; no genuine issue. | There is a genuine issue of material fact on public nuisance; remand to address public nuisance claim. |
| Have Hale's takings claim and devaluation theory been adequately developed and proven? | Devaluation of Hale property due to range constitutes a governmental taking. | Takings theory under Wild Rice River Estates is not adequately developed or supported by the record. | Takings claim insufficiently developed; remand for further consideration, but not decided in Hale's favor. |
| Did the district court properly weigh common-law nuisance factors at summary judgment? | Common-law factors should be applied, not merely statutory definitions. | Court correctly considered nuisance factors; warranted summary judgment. | Court erred by weighing factors; de novo review remains; result unchanged for private nuisance but affects analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rassier v. Houim, 488 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1992) (common-law nuisance factors remain relevant under § 42-01-01 when assessing duty and interference)
- Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, 337 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 1983) (concept of coming to the nuisance and factors assessing reasonableness)
- Gowan v. Ward County Commission, 2009 ND 72, 764 N.W.2d 425 (N.D. 2009) (findings on safety concerns used to argue applicability to Hale)
- Tarnavsky v. Rankin, 2009 ND 149, 771 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2009) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant; deference to record)
- Mandan Educ. Ass’n v. Mandan Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2000 ND 92, 610 N.W.2d 64 (N.D. 2000) (de novo review of record on nuisance issue; not disturbed by trial court’s reasoning)
- Doan v. City of Bismarck, 2001 ND 152, 682 N.W.2d 815 (N.D. 2001) (reasonableness standards on summary judgment; avoid weighing evidence)