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|
|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.|
|11||11/10/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|12||11/10/2011 DISK-AEB (E-MAILED)|
|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)|
|19||12/06/2011 ARGUED: Waived|
|20||04/10/2012 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|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|