Stenehjem, ex rel. v. National Audubon Society, Inc.
Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, ex rel.,
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff, Appellant
National Audubon Society, Inc., Defendant, Appellee
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge John E. Greenwood
|Nature of Action:||Real Property|
|Term:||01/2014  Argument: 01/03/2014|
|ND cite:||2014 ND 71|
844 N.W.2d 892
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. The district court erred by allowing the Audubon Society to invoke the equitable doctrine of laches when the State enforces the corporate farming laws in its sovereign capacity.
2. Laches is not available to the Audubon Society to defend its ownership of land which was acquired contrary to N.D.C.C. ch. 10-06.1.
3. The district court erred when it failed to cancel the conflicting statutory presumptions applicable to the Stutsman County Recorder and Attorney General.
4. The State rebutted the presumption that the Stutsman County Recorder regularly performed her official duty to notify the Attorney General of the Audubon Society's purchase.
5. The district court erred when it determined the Audubon Society rebutted the presumption the Attorney General performed his official duty regularly.
6. The Audubon Society would not be prejudiced if it was ordered to divest itself of the tract of land in question.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the District Court properly determined that N.D.C.C. 10-06.1-02 did not violate the Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the District Court properly determined that N.D.C.C. 10-06.1-02 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
3. Whether the District Court properly allowed National Audubon Society, Inc. to invoke the equitable doctrine of laches.
4. Whether National Audubon Society, Inc. can assert the defense of laches even if it acquired land in violation of N.D.C.C. ch. 10-06.1.
5. Whether the District Court's conclusion that the statutory presumptions applicable to the Stutsman County Recorder and Attorney General did not conflict was clearly erroneous.
6. Whether the District Court's determination that the State failed to rebut the presumption that the Stutsman County Recorder performed its official duty was clearly erroneous.
7. Whether the District Court's decision finding that National Audubon Society, Inc. had rebutted the presumption that the Attorney General performed its regular duty was clearly erroneous.
8. Whether the District Court's conclusion that National Audubon Society, Inc. would be prejudiced by divesture was clearly erroneous.
|Add Docket 20130279 RSS|
|1||09/11/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/10/2013|
|2||09/25/2013 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL FILED IN TRIAL COURT 9/24/2013|
|3||10/04/2013 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED October 3, 2013 (ENTRY NOS.1-112)|
|4||10/07/2013 AMENDED ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED October 7, 2013 (ENTRY NOS.1-87 to 89-113) Not sent #88|
|5||10/18/2013 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|6||10/18/2013 APPELLANT APPENDIX-Volume I & II|
|7||10/18/2013 DISK (ATB)(e-mailed)|
|8||11/19/2013 DISK (AEB)(e-mailed)|
|9||11/20/2013 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|10||12/02/2013 Appellant's Motion for Enalrgment of Word Limit (for reply brief)|
|11||12/03/2013 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (granted in part -- addt'l 2,000 words). Granted|
|12||12/05/2013 REPLY BRIEF|
|13||12/05/2013 DISK (RYB) (e-filed)|
|14||12/17/2013 ANNOUNCED DISQUALIFICATION: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair|
|15||12/17/2013 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|16||12/18/2013 SITTING WITH THE COURT: Schmalenberger, Allan L.|
|17||12/20/2013 REPLY BRIEF|
|18||12/20/2013 DISK (RYB) (e-mailed) (Appellee)|
|19||12/26/2013 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Great Plains Examiner & Prairie Public Radio)|
|20||01/03/2014 APPEARANCES: Matthew A. Sagsveen; Sarah A. Herman|
|21||01/03/2014 ARGUED: Matthew A. Sagsveen; Sarah A. Herman|
|22||01/04/2014 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|23||04/08/2014 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|24||04/08/2014 SPLIT OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|25||04/08/2014 DISSENTING: Sandstrom, Dale V.: DISSENT|
|26||04/08/2014 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|27||04/08/2014 Corrected/Substitute Opinion Page (Para 48, Line 5 to include ", as opposed to presumed")|
|28||04/09/2014 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|29||04/21/2014 PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|30||04/21/2014 DISK (RYB) (emailed)|
|31||05/05/2014 Rec'd signed Order from Sitting Judge|
|32||05/05/2014 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|