Dixon v. McKenzie Co. Grazing Association
John Dixon, Plaintiff and Appellant
Grazing Association, Defendant and Appellee
Northwest Judicial District,
Judge William W. McLees
|Nature of Action:||Contracts|
|Term:||11/2003  Argument: 11/19/2003 2:45pm|
|ND cite:||2004 ND 40|
675 N.W.2d 414
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Did the trial court err in determining, as a matter of law, that the MCGA breached no duty to John by issuing grazing permits to ranchers who did not own original base property?
2. Did the trial court err in determining, as a matter of law, that John's claim that the MCGA violated a duty to him by issuing grazing permits to ranchers, who did not own original base property, was barred by the statute of limitations?
3. Did the trial court err in determining that the MCGA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by implicitly finding John guilty of willful unauthorized use as a result of the December 1994 trespass?
4. Did the trial court err in determining that the MCGA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by changing John's headquarters from inventory to turn-in, as a result of the December 1994 unauthorized use complaint?
5. Did the trial court err in determining that the MCGA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in finding John guilty of willful unauthorized use in August 1997?
6. Did the trial court err by awarding the MCGA $2,500.00 in attorney fees for three allegedly frivolous counts in John's complaint, which were dismissed at summary judgment?
7. Did the trial court err in awarding MCGA disbursements for photocopies, a binder used for trial exhibits, postage, long distance telephone calls, costs to retrieve tax returns which were not used at trial, and the unsubstantiated cost of a Forest Service search of John's records?
Appellant's Petition for Rehearing Issues
1. Did the Supreme Court err, when it accepted of a statute of limitations argument on base property, although the MCGA did not clarify base property until the 1990s?
2. Did the Supreme Court err, when it upheld the trial court's decision that MCGA did not exhibit bad faith in the discipline, arising from the 1994 trespass complaint?
3. Did the Supreme Court err, when it applied the business judgment rule to the decisions of the MCGA, even though the MCGA controls John Dixon's livelihood, in its control of his grazing rights?
4. Did the Supreme Court err, when it upheld the MCGA's decision to change John Dixon's headquarters from inventory to turn-in, as a result of the December 1994 trespass complaint, even though the MCGA rule book allowed no such sanction?
5. Did the Supreme Court err, when it upheld the trial court's decision to award the MCGA $2,500.00 in attorney fees for three allegedly frivolous counts in John's complaint, which were dismissed at summary judgment?
6. Did the Supreme Court err, when it upheld the trial court's decision to allow, as recoverable costs and disbursements, photocopies, a binder used for trial exhibits, postage, and long distance telephone calls?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Did MCGA breach a duty owed to Dixon by issuing grazing permits to certain persons?
B. Did the Trial Court err in determining the Statute of Limitations prevented Dixon from bringing a claim against MCGA for issuing grazing permits to persons Dixon did not consider entitled to a permit?
C. Was MCGA arbitrary and capricious in finding that Dixon committed willful unauthorized use of his headquarters in 1994?
D. Was MCGA arbitrary and capricious in changing Dixon's headquarters from an inventory classification to a turn-in classification?
E. Was MCGA arbitrary and capricious in finding that Dixon committed willful unauthorized use in August 1997?
F. Did the Trial Court err in awarding MCGA $2500 in attorney's fees for frivolous counts in Dixon's Complaint that were dismissed?
G. Did the Trial Court err in awarding MCGA disbursements for certain costs?
H. What was the appropriate Standard of Review for the Trial Court in this case?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Should the record be supplemented on appeal?
|Add Docket 20030005 RSS|
|1||01/03/2003||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 01/02/2003|
|2||01/03/2003||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 01/02/2003|
|3||01/14/2003||Copies of letters from Sandra Ostrom to Mr. Chapman re: cost of transcript|
|4||01/28/2003||RECORD ON APPEAL (3 Vols.) - Depositions (9), Exhibits, Transcripts dated 12-22-97 & 5-08-00|
|5||02/07/2003||Copy of Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment and Amended Judgment|
|6||02/10/2003||SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S CERTIFICATE DATED FEBRUARY 7, 2003 (Entries 204 & 205)|
|7||02/10/2003||Ltr from Charles Chapman regarding second notice of appeal|
|8||02/12/2003||Second Notice of Appeal (filed in trial court 2-10-03)|
|9||02/12/2003||Second Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 2-11-03 (Entry Nos. 206 & 207)|
|10||02/20/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (faxed copy)|
|11||02/20/2003||ACTION BY TRIAL COURT. Granted: 04/21/2003|
|12||02/21/2003||Motion for Ext/Time/Transcript & Order of Judge McLees (Same as faxed copy filed 2-20-03)|
|13||04/21/2003||TRANSCRIPT COMMENCING DECEMBER 17, 2001 (4 VOL.) AND MASTER INDEX|
|14||04/21/2003||DISK - TRA - 4 vol & Index|
|15||05/27/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|16||05/27/2003||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 06/25/2003|
|17||06/24/2003||APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL WORDS for ATB|
|18||06/24/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Add'l 1000 words for ATB). Granted|
|21||06/25/2003||DISK - ATB|
|22||07/10/2003||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF & Aff/Support(faxed)|
|23||07/10/2003||MOTION FOR Add'l Words for AEB (part of Mot/Ext/AEB)(faxed)|
|24||07/10/2003||E-FILED MOTION &Aff/Support(Ext/time AEB & Add'l Words)|
|25||07/10/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot/Ext/AEB). Granted: 09/01/2003|
|26||07/10/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot/Add'l Words). Denied|
|27||07/11/2003||Original of Motion ext/time AEB & Add'l Words for AEB|
|28||08/15/2003||MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A REMAND TO TRIAL COURT|
|29||08/18/2003||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Remand). Granted|
|30||08/18/2003||ORDER OF REMAND|
|31||08/19/2003||Order of Temporary Remand Mailed to Parties|
|34||08/28/2003||DISK - AEB (e-mailed)|
|35||08/29/2003||Refiled RECORD ON APPEAL (3 vols.), Exhibits, Transcripts (2), & Depositions (9)|
|36||09/12/2003||SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF RECORD DATED 9-11-2003 (Entries No. 215, 216 & 217)|
|37||09/12/2003||The Notice of Appeal, Entry No. 215, is being filed as a Third Notice of Appeal|
|39||09/13/2003||DISK - RYB|
|40||09/17/2003||Second Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 9-16-03 (Entry Nos. 218 & 219)|
|41||09/29/2003||Supplemental Appellant's Brief|
|42||09/29/2003||Supplemental Appellant's Appendix|
|43||09/29/2003||DISK - (Supplemental ATB)|
|44||10/07/2003||Supplemental Appellee's Brief|
|45||10/07/2003||Supplemental Appellee's Appendix|
|46||10/07/2003||DISK - (Supplemental AEB - electronically filed)|
|47||11/19/2003||APPEARANCES: Charles "Casey" L. Chapman, John Dixon; Dennis E. Johnson, Keith Winter, McKenzie Co.|
|49||11/19/2003||ARGUED: Chapman; Johnson (Vol. Y; Page 173)|
|50||11/19/2003||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|52||02/25/2004||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|53||02/25/2004||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|54||02/26/2004||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|55||03/10/2004||PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|56||03/15/2004||Copies of corrected TOA and pages for Petition for Rehearing (Inserted)|
|57||03/15/2004||DISK - PER (e-mailed)|
|58||03/23/2004||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|60||04/08/2004||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|61||10/28/2009||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|