State v. Martin, 793 N.W.2d 188

Martin was charged with maintaining a public nuisance under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-15 and, on the same day, a civil nuisance action was filed seeking an injunction.
The district court issued an injunction in February 2010.
In March 2010, Martin moved to dismiss arguing § 42-01-07 limits remedies to one when the same nuisance is involved.
Martin pled guilty conditionally, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.
The district court and this Court agree § 42-01-07 does not restrict remedies to a single option and may permit multiple remedies for the same nuisance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 42-01-07 permits multiple remedies for the same nuisance.	Martin argues the word 'or' in the statute makes remedies mutually exclusive.	State contends the plural 'remedies' and statutory context allow multiple remedies.	No; § 42-01-07 does not limit to a single remedy.

Sauby v. City of Fargo, 747 N.W.2d 65 (ND 2008) (statutory interpretation and use of plain meaning)
Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 772 N.W.2d 582 (ND 2009) (interpretation of 'or' and remedial statutes)
Christl v. Swanson, 609 N.W.2d 70 (ND 2000) ('or' ordinarily disjunctive; interpretive guidance)
Sloven v. Olson, 98 N.W.2d 115 (ND 1959) (meaning of 'or' in statutes)
De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1956) (illustrates use of 'or' in statutory context)
Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 772 N.W.2d 582 (ND 2009) (reiterated analysis of remedial language)
Morton County Soc. Serv. Bd. v. Cramer, 2010 ND 58 (ND 2010) (focus on practical interpretation to avoid absurd results)