*1 may be parties to which the other relief unduly the trial court We believe entitled. built dam Young the fact
relied on considering rather than
protect his land if was drainage, any, not the
whether or negligently by unreasonably
done
defendants. the trial court’s find- conclude that
We drainage surface waters
ings was on an erro- reasonable use based
was a use” “reasonable conception
neous Furthermore, earlier explained
rule. for this
herein, inappropriate it would be findings under the reasona- to make Court and, accordingly, we reverse
ble rule use the case for judgment and remand with the concepts
new accordance trial5 determination, A within expressed herein. capabilities the status regarding
reasonable prior as it existed landscape man, should implemented
drainage resolving will be beneficial
made and law applies. principle C.J.,
ERICKSTAD, WALLE and VANDE
PEDERSON, GRAFF, JJ., and District concur.
Judge, D.J.,
GRAFF, sitting in PAUL- place J.,
SON, disqualified. HAMMOND, Plaintiff
Howard Appellant,
v. STATE
NORTH DAKOTA PERSONNEL BOARD, Appellee. Defendant
Civ. No. 10341. Dakota.
Supreme of North Court
April
1983.
State,
(N.D.
County
which the court dismissed Hammond’s ad- appeal, 28-32, ministrative under Chapter of subject juris- for lack matter diction. We reverse and remand to the district court for proceedings on the merits of Hammond’s administrative appeal. On Seifert, March Charlene Di- rector of the Depart- State Laboratories ment, employment terminated Hammond’s the department’s Chief Chemist. At the termination, time of his Hammond was a classified of the State North terminated, Dakota. Upon being Ham- completеd mond an “Employee Grievance provided by Form” the State of North Da- kota and followed various administrative steps in a culminating hearing and determi- nation on by the matter the North Dakota 26, 1982, State Personnel Board. On May the Board sustaining entered order employment. termination of Hammond’s Hammond appealed the order to Board’s court, 28-32, the district under Chapter by N.D.C.C. On motion district court dismissed Hammond’s jurisdiction. for lack of matter district court’s dismissal of ap- Hammond’s jurisdictional on peal grounds was based conclusion upon court’s Personnel did not authority Board have employ- confirm or terminatiоns of deny from agencies ment non-merit state order, having legal sig- Board’s no nificance, a proper subject was not matter appeal to district for court. Hammond’s from the court district requires this to resolve following Court two issues: (1) Whether or not the Board is an whose decisions Bucklin, Zuger Bismarck, plaintiff & for are Hill, appellant; argued by James S. N.D.C.C.; and Bismarck. (2) not the Whether or State Personnel Kathryn (ar- Marilyn L. Dietz and Foss Board has to review dis- Gen., Bismarck, gued), Attys. Asst. for de- employees. missals of classified state fendant and appellee. In determining that the district court dismissing erred Hammond’s administra-
ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. jurisdictional grounds, tive conclusions, This is an appeal following Howard Hammond have made the a judgment of the Court of District basis for which we will hereinafter discuss 12,1982, Burleigh dated County, October in detail: Management or division the Office
(1) The State
Budget.
or division
Office
office
not,
Budget
and is
Management
54-44-02, N.D.C.C., establishes
therefore,
under Subsection
exempt
Budget:
Management
the Office
28-32-01(l)(a),
from the
manage-
office of
“54-44-02. State
Administrative
*3
There
be an of-
budget.
ment and
shall
Act, Chapter
Practice
Agencies
vested
budget
of
and
management
fice
duties,
responsibil-
the
powers,
with
and
Board is an ad-
(2)
The State
adminis-
necessаry
supervise
ities
and
as defined
ministrative
various
the fiscal
ter
transactions
N.D.C.C.,
28-32-01(1),
Subsection
boards,
departments, agencies,
and
state
are
final orders and decisions
whose
commissions.”
district court under
the
var-
following
sections create
statutory
The
28-32-15, N.D.C.C.
of
or
within the Office
ious offices
divisions
Board has au-
(3)
The State
Management
Budget:
and
classi-
to review dismissals of
thority
budget—
of
“54-44.1-02. Office
the
employees.
fied state
of-
The
Employees—Powers.
Director —
N.D.C.C.,
28-32-01(1),
Subsection
in the
budget
hereby
of
established
fice
is
“
which defines
term administrative
for
budget,
and
management
office of
this
relevant
agency”, provides
economy and
promoting
purpose
of
appeal:
of
efficiency
management
in the fiscal
chap-
In this
Definitions.
“28-32-01.
of
government.
the state
The director
ter,
subjéct matter
the context or
unless
budget
and
management
the office
provides:
otherwise
budg-
be ex officio director of the
shall
”
agency’
‘agency’
1.
‘Administrative
[Emphasis
et....
added.]
bureau, commission,
board,
each
means
data
“54-44.2-01. Office of central
or other administrative
department,
The
of cen-
office
processing —Creation.
branch of state
of the executive
unit
processing
hereby
tral data
is
established
term adminis-
government,
The
...
budget.
management
office
and
in the
not include:
trative
does
management
office of
The director of the
management
and
a.
office of
The
budget
appoint a director
and
shall
”
re-
except
respect
rules
budget
with
[Emphasis
processing....
central data
system
personnel
to the central
lating
added.]
section 54-M4.3-07
as authorized under
divi-
personnel
“54-44.3-11. Central
purchasing
state
relating
rules
and
Director—Appointment—Removal.
sion—
under section 54-
practices
required
person-
a
is
created
central
hereby
There
44.4-04.”
manage-
the office of
nel division within
The
it is a division of
Board asserts that
supervision
and
under the
budget
ment
Budget
is
and
which
Management
Office of
responsi-
is
a director who
and control of
agency under
excluded as an administrative
performance
and exercise
for
ble
N.D.C.C., except
28-32-01(l)(a),
Subsection
duties, functions,
powers imposed
”
func-
rule-making
with
to certain
respect
add-
[Emphasis
.
the division...
upon
asser-
disagree
tions.
with
Board’s
We
ed.]
Office
tion that
it is
division
demonstrate
foregoing provisions
examining
Upon
Budget.
Management
create
Legislature has intended to
when
statutory
comparing
within the Office
an office or division
Management аnd
the Office of
create
it
so
Budget
has done
Management and
therein
Budget
various
divisions
effect.
express language
the State Per-
provision
which creates
creat
Board,
that the Board
sonnel
conclude
not
does
ing
office
the State Personnel
which is
independent entity
place
make the Board a division of or
from its “final orders or decisions and or-
Management
Board within the
substantially
Office
ders
decisions
affecting the
Budget:
rights
parties.”
“54-44.3-03.
board—
amendment,
Prior to the 1981
Composition Terms—Vacancies—Quali-
—
definition of administrative agency under
fications.
28-32-01(1),
provided:
Subsection
Effective July
1.
there is
“28-32-01. Definitions. —In
this
hereby created a five-member
state
chapter, unless the context or subject
board
personnel board. The
shall be
matter
provides:
otherwise
composed of a constitutionally elected
1.
‘Administrative
agency’ or
‘the
official, who
shall be
chairman of
agency’
officer, board,
any
shall include
board;
appointed
member
commission, bureau, department, or tri-
education;
of higher
board
one mem-
court,
bunal
other than
having state-
*4
appointed
governor;
by
ber
jurisdiction
wide
and authority to make
by
two members elected
employees
order,
determination,
any
finding,
classified under
sections 54-44.3-19
award, or
which
assessment
has the
and 54-44.3-20....”
force and
of law
by
effect
and which
Although the Legislature has expressly
statute
is
subject
review in the
created various offices or divisions within
state;
courts of
...”
[Emphasis
this
Management
Budget,
the Office of
Sec-
added.]
54r-44.3-03, N.D.C.C.,
tion
which creates the We construed that
provision mean that
not
State
does
make it an
entity
an
did not constitute an administra-
or
office
division within the Office of Man-
agency
Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C.,
tive
under
agement and Budget. Although the Cen-
from which
a right
there was
tral Personnel Division was created as a
chapter
right
under that
unless a
of review
Management
division
the Office of
expressly granted by
was
statutory provi-
Budget,
legislative provisions
various
dem-
other
sions
than those located within Chap-
onstrate that
the State Personnel Board is
Honey
ter
N.D.C.C. Knoefler
Farms
separate
distinct from
Central Per-
Just,
(N.D.1978);
v.
“Definition has these to view of administrative decisions. instances ‘administrative do not tive understood one ‘which fect finding, subject to sessment than state. reau, department, “One of tion and (A)ny “Section the courts [*] agency circumstances, the рrovisions of law and provide officer, board, court, having laws administered [*] determination, award, or as- 28-32-01 defines is that an which has as review in the statute is including: of this *5 agency’ for requirements [*] of Chapter to make agency’s or statewide [*] state.’ commission, tribunal by force and courts is 28-32. [*] administra- judicial not any decision is statute to review In is not an jurisdic- subject agency readily of this Under order, many other [*] bu- re- ef- is tion which executive branch provides whether or not the State Personnel Board’s decisions are 01(1), vant been amended ble.” fecting statute, sion. “Any an administrative where the decision of agency currently N.D.C.C. Section amended 28-32-01(1), and must be is orders or decisions Under Section . party .. nоt is declared any may appeal expressly Only rights version of amended, an subsequent administrative any proceeding final orders read in N.D.C.C. relevant resolve the of agency, excluded 28-32-01, N.D.C.C., final parties 28-32-15, N.D.C.C., state Subsection substantially conjunction except administrative administrative by The are appeala- unit of the government question such deci- this issue: any heard decisions in cases Subsec current 28-32- is rele- other 28- af- by an no agency definition of administrative members were concerned “Committee longer express there be an requires an resulting ramifications from over the statutory right of a of review under a grant subject to 28- being Chapter agency statute outside the located lack of standardized particularly 28-32, Chapter N.D.C.C. Pursuant to Sec lack rulemaking procedures and the 28-32-15, N.D.C.C., tion decisions of admin judicial Also agency review of decisions. “final agencies istrative constitute statutory concern was definition or and orders or orders decisions decisions agency. administrative Under affecting rights par substantially it is difficult to deter- current definition ties” are to the district court. appealable is whether an an ‘adminis- mine In view 1981 amendment to Subsec Attorney trative without an Gen- agency' 28-32-01(1), tion we construe Sec Supreme or a deci- opinion eral’s Court 28-32-15, authorizing tion sion. right of from decisions adminis n ; n : n n ! n : sk Accordingly, we agencies. trative conclude “Recommendations that final decisions of State Personnel Board are to district court “The recommends a bill committee agency’ redefine ‘administrative as used The ad- The which we must resolve in Chapter 28-32. bill redefines final issue ad- this case whether or not State Per- every ministrative to include is authority unit of the sonnel has review dis- ministrative executive branch employees. classified state involving The missals government. state new definition that the Board excepts those or The district court concluded specifically agencies authority and on that did not have such currently excepted functions ap- Hammond’s Attorney basis court dismissed present definition due jurisdiction. matter peal for lack of Supreme or a de- opinion General’s Court issue, it is to ex- necessary To resolve this cision.”
249
statutory provisions
amine the
the state in
creating and
the development and imple-
setting forth the duties of the State Person-
agency grievance
mentation of basic
pro-
nel Board.
It
necessary
is also
to examine
cedures
and a statewide
mecha-
statutory provision
directing the
nism.” [Emphasis added.]
Central Personnel Division to assist in the
If a statute is ambiguous or of doubtful
development
implementation
of a state- meaning, the
may
courts
resort to extrinsic
wide
mechanism.
statute,
aids in construing the
including the
The State Personnel Board was created in
legislative
history
the statute. Section
1975 under Section
N.D.C.C. 1-02-39, N.D.C.C. Morton County v.
The duties of the Board are set forth under Henke,
“54-44.3-12.2. complaints— to the bill authorizing appeal a statewide Cooperation development in and imple- law, mechanism. The bill became and the mentation of agency grievance pro- basic provision authorizing а appeal statewide cedures and a statewide appeal mecha- mechanism was codified as 5A-44.3- Section nism. It is the intent of the state of 12.2, N.D.C.C.
North Dakota to assure fair and equita- letter, 15, 1979, Á February ble treatment dated promote and be- harmony Nething, Majority tween and to David among all classified Senate employ- Leader, Ralston, Peg ees. To the director of ensure this the state desires to Division, resolve placed bona fide the Central Personnel was complaints as as quickly possible. permanent The division shall files of the conference cooperate with and assist the dealing various de- committee House Bill No. partments, agencies, and institutions of Although 1042. a letter to one member of The use of important tripartite 1. board always is not Legislature we believe that legislative history,
piece of it is in exception is an because this letter officer hearings 2. The use of a state that of the Central this letter director who would hear and decide all state- legislation au- requested Personnel Division appeals. wide mechanism thorizing appeal a statewide language sug- statutory because the and part 3. The use all or in the letter for gested by director for the external objectives was accomplishing indicated eliminating the need nearly process, as statewide adopted verbatim greatly funding.” 1042 which became law and House Bill No. for increased 54-44.3-12.2, now codified as Section following suggested Nething Ralston stat- suggested Because Ralston’s statutory language accomplishing for Legisla- utory language adopted was of which in her letter: objectives spoke she ture, explanation believe that her of the equitable desire to fair and “In its assure enacting consequences and purpose promote harmony treatment and between as in her letter to legislation, stated Senator among all employees, classified leg- Nething, determining is relevant in of North Dakota desires to resolve state authorizing islative intent statewide employee complaints quickly fide as bona im- quote mechanism. We the most appeal cooperate possible. as Division shall parts of Ralston’s communication to portant departments assist the various Nething relative to the issue before Senator development in the agencies appeal: us on this implementation grievance agency pass I on to suggested Melland “Senator appeal and a mech- procedures statewide my thoughts on a statewide you anism.” my desire to brought mechanism 54-44.3-12.2, N.D. examining fairness to all provide greater equity Upon sys- C.C., history of merit employees, regardless legislative in view state agency employ- system legisla- tem or non-merit House Bill No. we believe the availability of I believe the ment. intent was authorize tive within an grievance procedure employees for all classified state mechanism bona fide com- will allow most they a review through could obtain settled at plaints/grievances to be including dismissals. actions рercentage level. For lowest intent We further construe the at grievances satisfied 54-44.3-12.2, as au- under Section level, I would a statewide mecha- propose Division to thorizing the Central Personnel nism, to settle providing still an avenue include, of the statewide *7 forc- at a state rather than appeals level mechanism, a review actions personnel court action or ing employee to seek under the by the State Personnel Board federal intervention for satisfaction. foster and general authority “to Board’s personnel system
assure a administration govern- in the classified service of state dismissal, sus- perceive “I would issues of as are hearings” and to “hold such ment” demotion, dis- without and pension pay, vested necessary perform the functions race, sex, color, crimination because of Consequently, the Board law. affiliations, religion, political religious general the broad and non-job-related construe age, origin, national eligi- factors the Board under handicap given or other non-merit the state- au- through together ble for consideration with the mecha- process. appeal wide for a statewide thorization 54-44.3-12.2, nism under Section would include “My thoughts thus far Personnel authorizing as my in order of State three alternatives listed implementation development and preference: upon 251 appeal the statewide mechanism “Section Division, Personnel to review all Central “Procedure to review issues working “9-3-1 Within five days of the that mechanism. final step agency grievance pro- mechanism, statewide as de- cedure, the employee must submit the veloped implemented by and the Central properly completed prescribed form to Division under 9 of the the State Personnel Board in care of State of North Dakota Personnel Policies the Central Personnel Division. Manual, includes the following provisions ****** which are relevant particularly ap- to this peal: “9-3-5 After the employee hearings ex- aminer has hearing conducted the and
“CHAPTER 9 investigated gathered all pertinent “Appeals facts, the employee hearings examiner shall make a recommendation on behalf “Section 1 of the Central Personnel Division to the [*] [*] “Coverage [*] [*] sfs [*] decision. State ****** Board for a binding “9-1-2 Any classified employee per- “Section manent may status use the Statewide “Definitions for Purposes Policy of This Appeal Mechanism to a review request
or recоnsideration the following em- “9-4-1 Appeal ‘Statewide Mechanism’ dismissal; demotion; ployment actions: process is a whereby State Person- suspension without pay; and discrimi- nel Board will step be the final in a sex, color, nation race, because of age, multi-step process for resolving em- religion, origin, national handicapped ployee complaints in the areas of dis- condition, political affiliations. missal, demotion, suspension without
[*] [*] “Section 2 [*] [*] [*] [*] pay, gather, hearings examiner discrimination. An present all shall pertinent investigate, facts to the State Personnel Board for a Appeаl “Statewide Mechanism binding administrative decision. “9-2-1 It is the intent of the State of ****** North Dakota to insure fair equita- “9-4-5 ‘Dismissal’ means the involun- ble treatment promote harmony tary termination of employment of an among between and all classified em- employee for cause.” this, ployees. To insure de- sires to resolve bona fide employee Through Chapter 9 of the of North complaints as quickly possible. Manual, Dakota Personnel Policies statewide mechanism has im-
* * been * * * * plemented as authorized under Section 54- “9-2-6 An employee must have com- 44.3-12.2, N.D.C.C. Under the statewide pleted his/her agenсy’s griev- internal mechanism, permanent classified procedure ance prior entering *8 request state may review his Appeal Statewide Mechanism. or her dismissal. The Personnel State “9-2-7 The Appeal Statewide Mecha- Board, upon reviewing action nism shall be step considered the final dismissal, such as a makes the final decision in a multi-step process initiated appeal process. in the administrative employee. conclusion, previ- In view of our discussed
ously
opinion,
in this
that the
Person-
State
un-
gate
promulgation
nel Board is an administrative
rules and the
of rules
28-32, N.D.C.C.,
der
whose final
Chapter
accomplished
“shall be
in accordance with
orders are
under
28-32-
chapter
Section
If
provisions of
28-32.”
the Cen-
15, N.D.C.C.,
that
the Board’s
we conclude
tral
Division
Personnel
is a
order,
26, 1982,
May
affirming
dated
Ham-
Management
Budget
Office of
and
and the
mond’s dismissal as Chief Chemist
separate
entity
State Personnel Board is
Department,
appeala-
State Laboratories
either,
it
unnecessary
from
then would be
Chapter
ble to
court under
28-
the district
Legislature
exempt
for the
to
the Office of
32,
Consequently, we hold that
(and
Management
Budget
and
presumably
Ham-
dismissing
the district court erred in
Division)
Personnel
Central
subject
mond’s
for lack of
matter
operation
Chapter
specify
28-32 but
jurisdiction.
judgment
We reverse the
the rules of the
State
Board are
12,
court,
the district
dated October
to
in
adopted
Chapter
be
accordance with
proceedings
and remand for further
on the
28-32;
separate
for if the Board is
and
merits of Hammond’s
apart
Management
from the Office of
28-32, N.D.C.C.
Division,
Budget and the Central Personnel
provisions
it is not excluded from the
JJ.,
SAND,
and BEE-
PEDERSON
Chapter 28-32 and the rules adopted by it
DE,
Judge,
District
concur.
promulgated
must be
in accordance with
28-32-03,
Chapter 28-32. See Section
N.D.
BEEDE,
Judge, sitting
place
District
matters,
PAULSON, J.,
сomplicate
C.C. To further
disqualified.
Sec-
54-44.3-12(1) gives
tion
the director of the
WALLE,
Justice,
concurring
VANDE
Central Personnel Division the authority to
specially.
regulations subject
establish rules and
to
majority opinion
I believe the
reaches an
approval
of the State Personnel Board.
result. Whether or
that re-
equitable
The director of the Central Personnel Divi-
interpretation
legislative
sult is a correct
appointed by
sion is
the director of the
however,
may,
open
question.
intent
Management
Budget.
Office
It thus
entirely
I confess it is not
clear to me what
appears
legislation
is at best am-
intent is with
respect
biguous and I conclude that
the result
agencies
governed by Chapter
that are
28-
reached in the majority opinion, construing
32, N.D.C.C.,
Agencies
the Administrative
legislative intent as to whether or not the
Act,
Practice
particular
legisla-
and in
State Personnel Board is an administrative
tive
regard
relationship
intent with
to the
agency governed by
provisions Chap-
of the Central Personnel Division to the
28-32, N.D.C.C.,
ter
is as reasonable as a
relationship
State Personnel Board and the
result
I
contrary
and therefore concur with
of either of them to the Administrative
majority opinion
result reached
Agencies
majority
Practice Act. The
opin-
regard.
in that
ion concludes that
agree
I also
that the effect of the amend-
Board is an
administrative
28-32-01(1)
ments of
defining
Section
of Chapter
includ-
“administrative agency” is to make deci-
ing
right
of appeal, but
the Central
agencies subject
sions of administrative
Personnel Division is not.
28-32-
judicial review because of Section 28-32-15.
01(l)(a) excludes from the term “adminis-
previous
court,
begin-
decisions of this
trative
agency”
Management
Office of
ning with Dakota National Insurance Com-
Budget
“except
respect
to rules
Insurance,
pany v. Commissioner of
70 N.D.
relating
personnel systеm
the central
(1952),
253
C.C.,
Division or the Board are administrative
was enacted in 1979 as Section
of2
agencies,
it
566,
is clear from Section 28-32- Chapter
1979 N.D.Sess.Laws. That
01(1)
the
and regulations relating
that
rules
section,
isolation,
read in
appears
apply
to
to the
to
personnel system
central
are
be
all employee complaints,
to
including a dis-
-
promulgated pursuant
Chapter
to
28-32. missal,
to require
implementation
the
28-32-03, N.D.C.C., requires
Section
that
grievance procedures
and a state-
certain procedures be followed in promul- wide appeal mechanism. But Section 1 of
gating the rules.
In
to
approv-
addition
566,
N.D.Sess.Laws,
codified
ing
General,
opinion by
Attorney
the
Sec-
54-44.3-12.1,
as Section
to
applies
revisions
that,
tion 28-32-03 requires
with certain
compensation
plans and classifications.
exceptions,
the
published
rules be
in the Therefore, it
possible
is
that Section 54-44.-
North Dakota Administrative Code and fur-
conjunction
when read in
Chap-
provides
ther
published
that “rules not
566,1979 N.D.Sess.Laws,
ter
applies only to
the
code
administrative
shall be invalid.”
procedures
regard
grievance
pay
to
Although Chapter 4-02-04
the North
ranges
job
classifications rather than to
Dakota Administrative Code is concerned
It is again apparent
dismissals.
to me that
with appeals to the State Personnel
provisions
ambiguous.
history
the
are
The
those
apply
appeals
to
of classifi-
legislation
of the 1979
as recited in the
range
respect
cation or salary
except with
opinion
helpful
majority
construing
is
System
Merit
who
agency employees
legislative
agree
that
intent and I
with the
have a much
right
appeal,
broader
in-
by
conclusion
majority.
reached
the
cluding appeals from
Ham-
dismissals. Mr.
not
is truly
Whether or
that
indicative of
mond
not
Sys-
was
of a Merit
is,
concede,
legislative
intent
I
debata-
tem agency.
54-52-06,
Section
N.D.
See
ble.1
upon
C.C. The rules
majority
which the
opinion
Although
relies
there can be little doubt that
appear
would therefore
to be
28-32-03, N.D.C.C.,
invalid under
the statutes with which we are
Section
concerned
because,
ascertain,
I
they
ambiguous,
point
what
сan
are
one
is clear:
published
were not
in the Administrative
did
a hearing
State Personnel Board
hold
Code.
grievance
Hammond’s
as to his dismissal
and did render a decision. At least at that
If, however, the State Personnel
point the Board
had
apparently believed it
an administrative
if
agency and
the Board
authority
so.
to do
The Board now
has
authority
to review
of all
dismissals
argues
it
authority
had the
to do
as
so
employees, whether or
em-
they
not
are
result
consent
Labora-
ployed
a by
System agency,
Merit
the deci-
tories Commission that it do so and
sion of
judicial
the Board is
re-
hearing
legal
was therefore without
effect.
view independent
I
any
rules.
If were to
course, jurisdiction
Ordinarily,
cannot
54-44.3-07, N.D.C.C.,
look
at
only
Section
upon
conferred
court
consent. Pre-
Board,”
entitled
I
“Duties of
would con-
sumably the same rule
applies
clude
adminis-
that the Board
only
has
agencies.
trative
Whether or not the Board
relating
pay
review
action
job
ranges
hearing
classification
was
authorized to hold a
employ-
legally
but
However,
ee
However,
dismissals.
majority
and render
decision is unclear.
notes,
opinion
hearing
54-44.3-07
en-
fact
the Board did hold the
was
acted in
1975.
N.D.
compounds
the ambiguity
created
clarify
necessarily
1. Several bills to
status of the State
bills are not
indicative of the
past legislative
Personnel Board were introduced in
intent of
assemblies that enact-
1555,
1251,
upon
session. See H.B.
H.B.
ed the statutes we are now
called
2046, Forty-
H.B.
[see, e.g.,
S.B.
Nursing
and S.B.
construe
St. Vincent’s
Home
eighth Legislative Assembly.
Labor,
Department
(N.D.
At least two of
because, I noted at the concurrence, the result reached
special result, agree I majority equitable is an therein. If reached
with the conclusions attempt clarify reached in our
the result approv- not meet with the
the statutes does assemblies, presuma- of future
al the stat- take action to amend
bly they will they perceive to what correspond
utes to proper.
SAND, J., concurs. WATER COM- DAKOTA STATE
NORTH Engi- North Dakota State
MISSION and
neer, Appellants Plaintiffs and MANAGERS, Cavalier Coun- OF
BOARD District, ty and Willard Water Resource Appellees.
Crockett, Defendants
Civ. No. 10252. North Dakota. Court of
Supreme 12, 1983.
April