Hale v. State of North Dakota

20110146 Robert Hale, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
State of North Dakota; Jack
Dalrymple, in his official
capacity as Governor of North
Dakota; Shane Goettle, Director,
in his official capacity as
Director of the Department of
Commerce; North Dakota Department
of Commerce; the Minot Area
Development Corporation; the
Minot City Council (Curt
Zimbelman, Larry E. Frey, David F.
Lehner, Bob Miller, Hardy Lieberg,
Dean Frantsvog, Jim Hatlelid, Chuck
Barney, Tim Greenheck, Scott Knudsvig,
Mark Jantzer, Blake Krabseth, Ron
Boen, Lisa Olson, each in his or her
official capacities); and the City
of Minot, Defendants and Appellees

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge David E. Reich
Nature of Action: Other (Civil)
Counsel:
Appellant: Lynn M. Boughey
Appellee: Douglas Alan Bahr , Att. General Office
Appellee: Randall Joseph Bakke
Appellee: Bryan Lee Van Grinsven
Term: 11/2011   Argument: 11/03/2011  9:30am
ND cite: 2012 ND 148
NW cite: 818 N.W.2d 684

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Issue 1:Whether the lower court erred in not granting Robert Hale's motion for declaratory judgment or in the alternative his cross-motion for summary judgment due to the fact that the State and City's economic development program violates Article X, Section 18 as a matter of law.
Issue 2:Whether the lower court failed to take the complaint, Appendix 1, and its reasonable inferences as being true in regards to the motion to dismiss and therefore it was err to grant the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Issue 3:Whether the lower court erred in not providing Robert Hale an evidentiary hearing to determine the relevant facts in dispute due to these disputed facts.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether Hale Abandoned The Appeal From The Adverse Decision Of The District Court Regarding The Article X, Section 18 Claim, The Federal Constitutional Claims, And The Section 1983 Claims Due To His Failure To Brief Such Issues.
II. Whether the District Court's Grant of Minot's Motion for Summary Judgment And Denial Of Hale's Motions For Summary And Declaratory Judgment Were in Error. A. Whether Minot's MAGIC Fund Activities Violate Article X, Section 18 Of The North Dakota Constitution. B. Whether Minot's MAGIC Fund Activities Constitute A Taking Without Just Compensation, A Violation Of Equal Protection, Or A Violation Of Due Process Under The North Dakota Or United States Constitutions. C. Whether Minot's City Council Members Violated Hale's Civil Rights Pursuant to Title 42 United States Code, Section 1983.

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did Hale abandon his appeal of the District Court's dismissal of his claims against MADC?
2. If Hale did not waive his appeal of the District Court's dismissal of his claims against MADC, was that dismissal erroneous?
Add Docket 20110146 RSS Add Docket 20110146 RSS

Docket entries:
105/16/2011 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/12/2011
206/08/2011 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 06/08/2011
306/09/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (reset due to OTR filed by AE)
406/09/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT - reset due to OTR filed by AE). Granted: 06/21/2011
506/10/2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 07/28/2011
606/20/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
706/20/2011 E-FILED MOTION
806/20/2011 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 07/12/2011
906/22/2011 TRANSCRIPT DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2010, & C.O.S.
1006/22/2011 DISK-tra (11/23/11) e-mailed
1106/24/2011 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL (ENTRY NOS. 1-69) ENTRY NO. 70-CLERK'S CERT. OF RECORD
1207/12/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)
1307/12/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)
1407/13/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (sua sponte; due to ATB over the word limit)
1507/13/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT) (Sua Sponte; due to ATB being over the word limit). Granted: 07/22/2011
1607/20/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)
1707/20/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)
1807/21/2011 Received $210 surcharge for ATB & ATA (Receipt #20572)
1907/25/2011 Received 6 copies of ATA from CSD
2007/26/2011 Received 7 copies of ATB from CSD
2108/17/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (State of ND, Dalrymple, Goettle and Dept. of Commerce)
2208/17/2011 DISK - AEB (State of ND, Dalrymple, Goettle and Dept. of Commerce)
2308/18/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (Minot City Council & The City of Minot)
2408/18/2011 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB (Minot City Council & The City of Minot)
2508/18/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX - (Minot City Council & The City of Minot)
2608/18/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX - AEA (Minot City Council & The City of Minot)
2708/19/2011 Rec'd $25 AEB (Minot) e-file surcharge. (receipt no. 20622)
2808/19/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF (MADC)
2908/19/2011 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB (MADC)
3008/22/2011 Rec'd $25.00 AEB (MADC) e-file surcharge. (receipt no. 20627)
3108/22/2011 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB (Minot City Council & The City of Minot) from Central Duplicating.
3208/22/2011 Rec'd 6 copies of AEA (Minot City Council & The City of Minot) from Central Duplicating.
3308/23/2011 Rec'd 7 copies of AEB (MADC) from Central Duplicating.
3409/01/2011 REPLY BRIEF (e-filed) PDF
3509/01/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB) PDF
3609/08/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating.
3710/05/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
3810/26/2011 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Dale Wetzel from Associated Press) approved
3910/28/2011 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Prairie Public) approved
4011/03/2011 APPEARANCES: Lynn M. Boughey; Douglas A. Bahr;Randall J. Bakke; Bryan L. Van Grinsven
4111/03/2011 ARGUED: Lynn M. Boughey; Douglas A. Bahr;Randall J. Bakke; Bryan L. Van Grinsven
4211/03/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
4307/12/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
4407/12/2012 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
4507/12/2012 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellees
4607/13/2012 Judgment Sent to Parties
4708/14/2012 MANDATE
4808/17/2012 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
4910/18/2012 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed and placed on docket
5001/10/2013 Notice from U.S. Supreme Court that Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/18/2014