Wild Rice River Estates v. City of Fargo
Wild Rice River Estates, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellant
City of Fargo, a municipal
corporation, Defendant and Appellee
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Douglas R. Herman
|Nature of Action:||Real Property|
|Term:||09/2005  Argument: 09/01/2005 1:30pm|
|ND cite:||2005 ND 193|
705 N.W.2d 850
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
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|
|1||03/02/2005||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 03/01/2005|
|2||03/02/2005||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 03/01/2005|
|3||03/31/2005||TRANSCRIPTS DATED 10-25-04, 10-26-04, 10-27-04, & 10-28-04 (4 vols.)|
|4||04/01/2005||DISK - TRA (10/25/04, 10-26-04, 10-27-04, & 10-28-04)|
|5||04/01/2005||RECORD ON APPEAL & Exhibits. Not rec'd:#16(tape); #137 (Def Exh. 130--large map of Wild Rice River|
|6||04/01/2005||Estates); #138 (Def. Exh. 131--large map of Wild Rice River Estates); #172 (Def. Exh. 165--large|
|7||04/01/2005||aerial photo of Wild Rice River Estates); #173 (Def. Exh. 166 --large map of South Fargo Flood|
|8||04/01/2005||Plan); and #180 (Steno Notes) (Entry Nos. 137,138,172 & 173 were filed 8-11-05)|
|11||05/19/2005||Corrected table of authorities & pages 26, 29, & 30 for ATB|
|12||05/19/2005||DISK - atb|
|15||06/09/2005||DISK - aeb|
|17||06/22/2005||DISK - RYB|
|18||07/19/2005||ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|19||07/25/2005||SITTING WITH THE COURT: Foughty, Donovan John|
|20||08/11/2005||Filed ROA Entry Nos. 137 (Def's Ex. 130), 138 (Def's Exh. 131), 172 (Def's Exh. 165) & 173|
|21||08/11/2005||(Def's Ex. 166)|
|22||09/01/2005||APPEARANCES: Jonathan T. Garaas; Patricia A. Roscoe, Garylle B. Stewart|
|23||09/01/2005||ARGUED: Garaas; Roscoe|
|24||09/01/2005||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|26||11/14/2005||UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|27||11/14/2005||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|28||11/14/2005||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|29||11/28/2005||PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|30||11/30/2005||DISK - PER|
|31||12/23/2005||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|33||01/13/2006||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|34||03/28/2006||Notice from the U.S. Supreme Court of filing pet. for writ of certiorari|
|35||05/22/2006||Letter from U.S. Supreme Court dated 5-15-06 RE: Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied.|
|36||09/14/2012||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|