State v. Nelson
2012 ND 110
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Empower the Taxpayer seeks injunctive relief against various state and local officials over viewpoints on Measure 2 abolishing property taxes.
- Empower alleges violations of the North Dakota Corrupt Practices Act by distributing false or misleading information about Measure 2.
- District Court dismissed for lack of standing and no private right of action under the Act, a criminal statute.
- Court reviews whether the Corrupt Practices Act implicitly creates a private right of action; burden on Empower to show legislative intent.
- Court held no private right of action exists; injunctive relief cannot enforce criminal statutes absent express authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a private right of action to enforce the Corrupt Practices Act? | Empower seeks implied remedy for violations of the Act. | Legislature did not intend a private right of action; Act is criminal or regulatory. | No private right of action exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- District One Republican Comm. v. District One Democrat Comm., 466 N.W.2d 820 (N.D. 1991) (civil election contest rationale applicable to Corrupt Practices Act implication)
- Ernst v. Burdick, 687 N.W.2d 473 (N.D. 2004) (silence on private remedies indicates no implied right of action)
- Trade ’N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc., 628 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2001) (three Cort v. Ash factors for implied private rights of action)
- Svedberg v. Stamness, 525 N.W.2d 678 (N.D. 1994) (injunctive relief not available to enforce criminal law absent statutory authorization)
- Brandvold v. Lewis and Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 161, 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal for failure to state a claim; standard applied)