State v. Nickel

20100410 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
William Joseph Nickel, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Thomas J. Schneider
Nature of Action: Drugs/Contraband
Counsel:
Appellant: Julie Ann Lawyer , Att. General Office
Appellee: Garrett David Ludwig
Term: 06/2011   Argument: 06/01/2011  10:45am
ND cite: 2011 ND 200
NW cite: 806 N.W.2d 155

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the District Court erred in finding that the Board of Pharmacy did not provide adequate notice of the final interim rule scheduling certain substances.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the District Court erred in finding that the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy did not substantially comply with the notice requirement applicable to the adoption of an emergency rule.

Add Docket 20100410 RSS Add Docket 20100410 RSS

Docket entries:
112/29/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/28/2010
212/29/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/28/2010
301/27/2011 RECORD ON APPEAL
402/03/2011 TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2010 & C.O.S.
502/07/2011 (This case is consolidated w/20100411 & 20100412; make all docket entries, except DIS & MAN codes,
602/07/2011 in this case)
703/15/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF
803/15/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX
903/17/2011 DISK-ATB (E-MAILED)
1004/07/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF
1104/07/2011 ACTION BY DEPUTY CLERK (MAE). Granted: 04/29/2011
1204/26/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF
1304/26/2011 DISK-AEB (E-MAILED)
1405/20/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1506/01/2011 APPEARANCES: Julie A. Lawyer; Garrett D. Ludwig
1606/01/2011 ARGUED: Julie A. Lawyer; Garrett D. Ludwig
1706/01/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1810/18/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
1910/18/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
2010/18/2011 (CONCUR IN THE RESULT): Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/RES
2110/19/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
2211/09/2011 MANDATE
2311/14/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2401/18/2012 Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page 3

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/28/2014