Schock v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation
Paul Alfred Schock, Appellant
North Dakota Department
of Transportation, Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Bruce B. Haskell
|Nature of Action:||Transportation Dept.|
|Term:||12/2011  Argument: 12/06/2011 Waived|
|ND cite:||2012 ND 77|
815 N.W.2d 255
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
I.Because there was no evidence presented establishing that the chemical test was performed within two (2) hours of driving a motor vehicle, the order suspending Mr. Schock's driving privileges is not in accordance with the law.
II.The hearing officer's failure to abide by the immediacy requirement of N.D.C.C. 39-20-05(5) was not in accordance with law.
III.The hearing officer's decision is without substantial justification and is so starkly in contravention of North Dakota law as to warrant the imposition of attorney's fees and costs as allowed by N.D.C.C. 28-32-50.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.The hearing officer's finding that Schock was chemically tested within two hours from the time of driving is supported by the weight of the evidence.
II.The immediacy language of N.D.C.C. 39-20-05(5) is not jurisdictional.
III.The hearing officer's decision was substantially justified and Schock is not entitled to attorney's fees.
|Add Docket 20110254 RSS|
|1||09/06/2011||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/01/2011|
|2||09/07/2011||DISK - Adm. Agency Hearing Transcript dated 4-8-11 (e-mailed)|
|3||09/29/2011||ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL (entry nos. 1-26)|
|4||10/11/2011||APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed) PDF|
|5||10/11/2011||E-FILED BRIEF (ATB) PDF|
|6||10/11/2011||APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|7||10/11/2011||E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|8||10/12/2011||Received $25 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #20703).|
|9||10/17/2011||Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|10||10/17/2011||Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.|
|13||11/16/2011||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|14||11/23/2011||S.CT. DETERMINED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT NECESSARY|
|15||11/28/2011||REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|16||11/28/2011||E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|17||11/29/2011||Rec'd 7 copies RYB from Central Duplicating.|
|18||12/06/2011||APPEARANCES: Waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(a)|
|21||04/10/2012||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|22||04/10/2012||Concur in the result: Crothers, Daniel John: CON/RES|
|23||04/10/2012||Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|24||04/11/2012||Judgment Sent to Parties|
|25||04/23/2012||PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|26||04/23/2012||E-FILED BRIEF (PER)|
|27||04/24/2012||Rec'd 7 copies of PER from CSD|
|28||05/03/2012||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|30||10/12/2012||Corrected/Substitute Opinion Pages|