Wild Rice River Estates v. City of Fargo

20050074 Wild Rice River Estates, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
City of Fargo, a municipal
corporation, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Judge Douglas R. Herman
Nature of Action: Real Property
Counsel:
Appellant: Garaas Law Firm
Appellee: Solberg Stewart Miller , City Attorney
Term: 09/2005   Argument: 09/01/2005  1:30pm
ND cite: 2005 ND 193
NW cite: 705 N.W.2d 850

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Listen to recording of oral argument in RM format
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Has there been a regulatory taking of Wild Rice's property by the City of Fargo?
2. Did the City of Fargo's moratorium deny Wild Rice all economically viable use of its property?
3. If the City of Fargo's moratorium did not deny Wild Rice all economically viable use of its property, is Wild Rice entitled to just compensation for that which was taken?
4. Did the Answer of the City of Fargo suggest a permanent taking based upon its failure to give governmental notice of abandonment of the moratorium?
5. If failure to give notice of abandonment is excused, does a governmental entity have to pay just compensation for the interim period between the moratorium and the date it is lifted?
6. What is the formula for determining just compensation?
7. Did the trial court improperly delegate judicial function which led to an abuse of process when concluding papers were prepared?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the Trial Court Properly Conclude that the City of Fargo's 21-month Moratorium Did not Constitute a Taking of Wild Rice's Property in Violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,  16 of the North Dakota Constitution, and North Dakota Century Code Chapter 32-15?
A. Takings Law Generally the Same Under the North Dakota and United States Constitutions
B. Rippley Does Not Provide the Appropriate Legal Analysis
C. The City's Moratorium Does Not Constitute a Per Se Taking
D. Application of Penn Central-Fargo's Moratorium Was A Proper Exercise of Police Power
1. Economic Impact and Interference with Investment-Backed Expectations-Dreams of Success and Stark Realities.
2. Character of the Government Action; The City of Fargo Acted Diligently and in Good Faith
E. North Dakota's Statutory Eminent Domain Law Does Not Apply in this Case
II. The Trial Court Properly Concluded that Wild Rice Failed to Prove its Claims Regarding Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship
III. The Trial Court Properly Exercised its Judicial Authority With Respect to Entering Judgment in this Case in the City's Favor

Add Docket 20050074 RSS Add Docket 20050074 RSS

Docket entries:
103/02/2005 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/01/2005
203/02/2005 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 03/01/2005
303/31/2005 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 10-25-04, 10-26-04, 10-27-04, & 10-28-04 (4 vols.)
404/01/2005 DISK - TRA (10/25/04, 10-26-04, 10-27-04, & 10-28-04)
504/01/2005 RECORD ON APPEAL & Exhibits. Not rec'd:#16(tape); #137 (Def Exh. 130--large map of Wild Rice River
604/01/2005 Estates); #138 (Def. Exh. 131--large map of Wild Rice River Estates); #172 (Def. Exh. 165--large
704/01/2005 aerial photo of Wild Rice River Estates); #173 (Def. Exh. 166 --large map of South Fargo Flood
804/01/2005 Plan); and #180 (Steno Notes) (Entry Nos. 137,138,172 & 173 were filed 8-11-05)
905/10/2005 APPELLANT BRIEF
1005/10/2005 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1105/19/2005 Corrected table of authorities & pages 26, 29, & 30 for ATB
1205/19/2005 DISK - atb
1306/08/2005 APPELLEE BRIEF
1406/08/2005 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1506/09/2005 DISK - aeb
1606/22/2005 REPLY BRIEF
1706/22/2005 DISK - RYB
1807/19/2005 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Crothers, Daniel John
1907/25/2005 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Foughty, Donovan John
2008/11/2005 Filed ROA Entry Nos. 137 (Def's Ex. 130), 138 (Def's Exh. 131), 172 (Def's Exh. 165) & 173
2108/11/2005 (Def's Ex. 166)
2209/01/2005 APPEARANCES: Jonathan T. Garaas; Patricia A. Roscoe, Garylle B. Stewart
2309/01/2005 ARGUED: Garaas; Roscoe
2409/01/2005 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2511/14/2005 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2611/14/2005 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
2711/14/2005 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee
2811/14/2005 Judgment Mailed to Parties
2911/28/2005 PETITION FOR REHEARING
3011/30/2005 DISK - PER
3112/23/2005 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied
3201/11/2006 MANDATE
3301/13/2006 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3403/28/2006 Notice from the U.S. Supreme Court of filing pet. for writ of certiorari
3505/22/2006 Letter from U.S. Supreme Court dated 5-15-06 RE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied.
3609/14/2012 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 08/01/2014