Highlight: There is a difference between a claim asserting a law is facially unconstitutional and a claim asserting an unconstitutional facial taking occurred. An ordinary facial challenge requires a plaintiff to prove the legislature exceeded a constitutional limitation when it enacted a law, and consequently the law on its face violates the constitution. A facial taking claim, on the other hand, is a specific type of facial challenge that asserts the mere enactment of a statute constitutes a taking.
Whether a claim is a facial or as-applied challenge is not of great import when deciding whether it has accrued for purposes of a statute of limitation. The accrual date of a facial or as- applied challenge is identical to the accrual date of other substantive claims—the date upon which the plaintiff's injury occurred and the cause of action became complete. A case alleging facial unconstitutionality is ripe not simply when the law is passed but, just like an asapplied challenge, when the government acts pursuant to that law and adversely
affects the plaintiff's rights.
Regulatory takings are different than physical takings. An important distinction between physical and regulatory takings claims is the accrual date. In a regulatory taking, it is passage of the ordinance that injures a property's value or usefulness. But a physical taking causes injury when the property itself is taken.
|
Highlight: Deeds are interpreted in the same manner as contracts. In construing a deed, the primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the grantor's intent.
A grantor's intent must be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible. When a deed is unambiguous, the parties' intent is determined from the instrument itself.
The "safe harbor" provision in N.D.C.C. § 47-16-39.1(1) applies when there is a dispute of title that would affect distribution of royalty payments.
Determining who is a prevailing party for an award of disbursements is a question of law, subject to de novo review, while the question of the amount allowed for disbursements and costs is one of fact, subject to an abuse of discretion standard.
|
Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
|
Highlight: An order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
|
