State v. Eide
2012 ND 129
N.D.2012Background
- Robert and Susan Hale own a residence on agricultural land about a mile southeast of a law enforcement shooting range in Ward County, North Dakota.
- The Hales allege the shooting range is a private and public nuisance that devalues their property and constitutes a governmental taking.
- The case references the Gowan v. Ward County Commission dispute on safety findings related to proximity of a range to nearby property.
- Ward County and the City of Minot moved for summary judgment on nuisance and takings claims, arguing the range is a sport shooting facility or otherwise not a nuisance.
- The district court denied Hale motions for summary judgment/extended relief, then granted summary judgment to Ward County and Minot, dismissing Hale’s amended complaint; appeal followed.
- The appellate court ultimately affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the shooting range constitutes a private nuisance | Hale asserts the range unreasonably interferes with his property use. | Ward County/Minot contend the range is not a nuisance under statute and common law factors. | Partial reversal: genuine issues of material fact remain on public nuisance; private nuisance merits remand due to improper weighing. |
| Whether the shooting range constitutes a public nuisance | Hale argues county road proximity and damages affect the neighborhood. | County/City dispute scope and lack of injury showing; terrain may preclude bullets crossing Road 12. | Remand for public nuisance issue; court notes need to address special injury and road impact. |
| Whether Hale's takings claim survives summary judgment | Devaluation of Hale property due to nuisance constitutes a governmental taking. | Takings theory not adequately developed with authority or facts. | Hales’ takings claim requires development of evidentiary and legal basis; not decided on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rassier v. Houim, 488 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1992) (common-law nuisance factors remain relevant when statutory framework exists)
- Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass’n, 337 N.W.2d 427 (N.D. 1983) (coming-to-the-nuisance and balancing factors in 42-01-01 context)
- Tarnavsky v. Rankin, 2009 ND 149, 771 N.W.2d 578 (ND 2009) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of facts and law)
- Mandan Educ. Ass’n v. Mandan Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2000 ND 92, 610 N.W.2d 64 (ND 2000) (court’s role in summary judgment; cannot weigh credibility on motion)
- Doan v. City of Bismarck, 2001 ND 152, 632 N.W.2d 815 (ND 2001) (reasonableness standards on summary judgment; avoid weighing evidence)