Mann v. ND Tax Commissioner

20040174 Joan Mann, Ken Danks d/b/a
TEK Industries, Tracy Wilkie,
Christa Monette, and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants
and Cross-Appellees
ND Tax Commissioner, Rick
Clayburgh, Defendant, Appellee
and Cross-Appellant
ND Treasurer, Kelly Schmidt, Defendant

Appeal from: District Court, North Central Judicial District, Mountrail County
Judge Gary A. Holum
Nature of Action: Tax Related
Appellant: Vance Gillette
Appellee: Daniel Lucian Rouse , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Appellee: Robert W. Wirtz , Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Appellee: Wayne K. Stenehjem , Att. General Office
Term: 11/2004   Argument: 11/29/2004
ND cite: 2005 ND 36
NW cite: 692 N.W.2d 490

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Does the Court have jurisdiction when the state's notice of appeal did not designate a January 2004 injunction order, and a motion for reconsideration lacked specifics.
2. Did the district court properly enter a permanent injunction barring collection of state fuel taxes on reservation Indian plaintiffs?
3. Were plaintiffs Mann, Wilkie and Monette improperly dismissed as plaintiffs when they sought injunctive relief under D.D.I. Inc. v. State Tax Comm.?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. This matter appears to be a procedural morass. However, the core issue in this case on cross-appeal, as provided under N.D.R.App.P. 28, is whether the District Court erred in holding that the imposition of North Dakota motor vehicle and special fuel taxes on fuel ultimately sold at retail to native Americans who reside on Indian reservations, are enrolled members of that reservation's tribe, and purchase their motor vehicle and special fuels on that Indian reservation, is not authorized under the Hayden-Cartwright Act, 4 U.S.C.  104.
2. The State's issue as Appellee is whether the District Court's determination that the Plaintiffs now removed from this action must exhaust their administrative remedies before participating in this action was correct.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Appellee Cross-Appellant Reply Brief Issues:
1. Plaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief misstates the holding of the District Court in this matter. 2. sPlaintiffs-Appellants' Reply Brief exceeds the scope of N.D.R.App.P. 28(d).
Add Docket 20040174 RSS Add Docket 20040174 RSS

Docket entries:
106/28/2004 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 06/25/2004
206/28/2004 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL (Tax Commissioner)
306/28/2004 MOTION FOR Ext/Time (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
406/29/2004 NO ACTION TAKEN
507/29/2004 RECORD ON APPEAL (2 vols.) w/exception of Cert. #74 - steno notes (#77 has no document-not used)
808/05/2004 DISK - ATB
909/02/2004 APPELLEE BRIEF
1009/08/2004 DISK - AEB (e-mailed)
1109/08/2004 Corrected title page and disk for AEB
1209/15/2004 REPLY BRIEF of Appellant
1309/21/2004 Corrected TOA & page 4 for RYB
1409/21/2004 DISK - RYB of AT
1509/29/2004 REPLY BRIEF of Appellee and Cross-Appellant
1609/29/2004 DISK - RYB of AE and Cross-AT
1711/29/2004 APPEARANCES: Vance Gillette; Daniel Rouse and Robert W. Wirtz, Special Asst. Attorneys General
1811/29/2004 ARGUED: Gillette; Rouse (Vol. Z; Page 58)
2102/16/2005 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning
2202/16/2005 No costs taxed on this appeal
2302/22/2005 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2403/11/2005 MANDATE
2609/06/2011 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 06/21/2018