Wild Rice River Estates v. City of Fargo
v.
City of Fargo, a municipal
corporation, Defendant and Appellee
Judge Douglas R. Herman
| Appellant: | Garaas Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Solberg Stewart Miller , City Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
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