Bismarck Public Schools v. Walker

6 Citing cases

  1. Barrios-Flores v. Levi

    894 N.W.2d 888 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Holding pre-arrest breath test does not violate the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, § 8

    tion of an appeal."); State v. Friedt , 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7, 735 N.W.2d 848 ("This Court will refrain from deciding constitutional questions if it can decide a dispute on other grounds."); Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen's Ass'n , 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23, 579 N.W.2d 171 (a court generally will not decide constitutional questions which are not necessary to its decision); Glaspie v. Little , 1997 ND 108, ¶ 15, 564 N.W.2d 651 ("We inquire into the constitutionality of a statute only to the extent required by the case before us."); State v. Waters , 542 N.W.2d 742, 745 (N.D. 1996) (refrain from deciding constitutional questions if they can decide a dispute on other grounds); Little v. Graff , 507 N.W.2d 55, 59 (N.D. 1993) ("Courts refrain from deciding constitutional questions if they can decide a dispute on other grounds."); Minot Daily News v. Holum , 380 N.W.2d 347, 350 (N.D. 1986) (we refrain from deciding constitutional issues where appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the issue exist); Bismarck Pub. Sch. v. Walker , 370 N.W.2d 565, 566 (N.D. 1985) ("It is a well-settled rule of decision making that a court will refrain from deciding constitutional issues where there are appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the case before it."); Tooz v. State , 76 N.D. 599, 38 N.W.2d 285, 287 Syll. 3 (1949) ("As a general rule a court will inquire into the constitutionality of a statute only to the extent required by the case before it and will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it, and will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied."); Goodman v. Christensen , 71 N.D. 306, 300 N.W. 460, 467 (1941) ("A court will not assume to pass upon a constitutional question unless the question is properly before it and this does not occur unless the constitutional question must be decided in order to determine the controversy before the court."); Reeves & Co. v. Russell , 28 N.D. 265, 148 N.W. 654, 655 (1914) (the court wil

  2. Barrios-Flores v. Levi

    2017 N.D. 117 (N.D. 2017)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    ermination of an appeal.”); State v. Friedt, 2007 ND 108, ¶ 7, 735 N.W.2d 848 (“This Court will refrain from deciding constitutional questions if it can decide a dispute on other grounds.”); Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen’s Ass’n, 1998 ND 120, ¶ 23, 579 N.W.2d 171 (a court generally will not decide constitutional questions which are not necessary to its decision); Glaspie v. Little, 1997 ND 108, ¶ 15, 564 N.W.2d 651 (“We inquire into the constitutionality of a statute only to the extent required by the case before us.”); State v. Waters, 542 N.W.2d 742, 745 (N.D. 1996) (refrain from deciding constitutional questions if they can decide a dispute on other grounds); Little v. Graff, 507 N.W.2d 55, 59 (N.D. 1993) (“Courts refrain from deciding constitutional questions if they can decide a dispute on other grounds.”); Minot Daily News v. Holum, 380 N.W.2d 347, 350 (N.D. 1986) (we refrain from deciding constitutional issues where appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the issue exist); Bismarck Pub. Sch. v. Walker, 370 N.W.2d 565, 566 (N.D. 1985) (“It is a well-settled rule of decision making that a court will refrain from deciding constitutional issues where there are appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the case before it.”); Tooz v. State, 76 N.D. 599, 38 N.W.2d 285, 287 Syll. 3 (1949) (“As a general rule a court will inquire into the constitutionality of a statute only to the extent required by the case before it and will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it, and will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.”); Goodman v. Christensen, 71 N.D. 306, 300 N.W. 460, 467 (1941) (“A court will not assume to pass upon a constitutional question unless the question is properly before it and this does not occur unless the constitutional question must be decided in order to determine the controversy before the court.”); Reeves & Co. v. Russell, 28 N.D. 265, 148 N.W. 654, 655 (1914) (the court will d

  3. Stenehjem ex rel. State v. Nat'l Audubon Soc'y, Inc.

    2014 N.D. 71 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    1, violates the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Because this case can be resolved on the basis of laches, we decline to address the constitutional arguments raised by Audubon. See Bismarck Pub. Sch. v. Walker, 370 N.W.2d 565, 566 (N.D.1985) (stating, “It is a well-settled rule of decision making that a court will refrain from deciding constitutional issues where there are appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the case before it.”). VIII

  4. Pulkrabek v. Morton County

    389 N.W.2d 609 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 18 times
    Stating implication of county commission's decision to deny building permit was that road was "rural road" within meaning of ordinance

    It is well established that a party may not seek the benefit or application of a law and, in the same proceeding, attack its validity. Bismarck Public Schools v. Walker, 370 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1985); Frieh v. City of Edgeley, 317 N.W.2d 818 (N.D. 1982). In the instant case the Pulkrabeks applied for a building permit and requested a variance and, on appeal from the Board's decision to deny their application and request, challenged the validity of the ordinance.

  5. Minot Daily News v. Holum

    380 N.W.2d 347 (N.D. 1986)   Cited 22 times

    Articulation of such findings and conclusions provides the rationale for the trial court's decision and is essential for intelligent judicial review. (5) As far as the public's (which includes the media) right to object, we need not decide if the right of access is constitutionally guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, [ Bismarck Public Schools v. Walker, 370 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1985) (we refrain from deciding constitutional issues where appropriate alternative grounds to resolve the issue exist)], because we hold as a matter of strong judicial policy that the public is entitled to access to preliminary examinations or to reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard on motions to close preliminary examinations. This issue may soon be decided.

  6. State v. Wilt

    371 N.W.2d 159 (N.D. 1985)   Cited 10 times

    Edwards v. Thompson, 336 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1983); Mattis v. Mattis, 274 N.W.2d 201 (N.D. 1979). Furthermore, it is well established that we will refrain from deciding constitutional issues, such as the one presented by Altman, unless required to do so by the case before us. Bismarck Public Schools v. Walker, 370 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 1985). For these reasons we affirm the decision of the trial court.