Yellow Book Sales v. Bolinske Partnership
2011 ND 43
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Berger was arrested for DUI on Jan. 9, 2010 and requested an administrative hearing.
- The hearing was set for Mar. 1, 2010 at 2:30 p.m.; the arresting officer was unavailable, leading the hearing officer to reschedule.
- The hearing officer moved the hearing to Feb. 23 at 11:00 a.m. after Berger’s counsel had a conflicting hearing; counsel objected in writing but the letter was not received until the morning of Feb. 23.
- Berger’s counsel appeared Feb. 23 and objected to proceeding; the officer proposed Feb. 26 but it conflicted with counsel’s schedule; the arresting officer offered Mar. 1 at 8:00 a.m.
- Berger’s counsel elected to confirm availability and asked to revert to the original 2:30 p.m. time; the hearing proceeded on Mar. 1 at 8:00 a.m.; Berger did not attend.
- The hearing officer suspended Berger’s driving privileges for two years; the district court affirmed the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescheduling violated legal requirements. | Berger argues the hearing should be held at the original time. | The hearing officer has broad discretion to schedule hearings. | No violation; scheduling within discretion did not deny due process. |
| Whether Berger’s notice and opportunity to be heard were adequate. | Berger was denied fair notice of the rescheduled time. | Berger received notice and opportunity to be heard. | Adequate notice and opportunity to be heard; due process not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lange v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2010 ND 201 (2010) (agency deference in review of administrative decisions)
- Landsiedel v. Director, North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2009 ND 196 (2009) (limited judicial review of agency decisions)
- Masset v. Director, North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2010 ND 211 (2010) (great deference to agency findings of fact)
- Sample v. North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 2009 ND 198 (2009) (standards for reviewing administrative agency decisions)
- Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1995) (hearing officer’s discretion in adjudicative proceedings; quasi-judicial role)
- Knudson v. Director, North Dakota Dep't of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995) (discretion of hearing officers over procedural matters)
- Hartleib v. Simes, 2009 ND 205 (2009) (trial court discretion over scheduling and continuances)