[¶ 26] Brown contends the Ordinance is unconstitutional because it is overbroad or vague. [¶ 27] In City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, 729 N.W.2d 120, we addressed overbreadth and vagueness challenges in the context of a municipal animal control ordinance markedly similar to Cass County's ordinance. We explained the application of the two doctrines:

[¶ 29] Ben Simons argues the child abuse statutes are unconstitutionally vague. [¶ 30] This Court summarized the vagueness doctrine in Salsman, 2009 ND 15, ¶ 21, 760 N.W.2d 123 (quoting City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 10, 729 N.W.2d 120): All laws must meet two requirements to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge: (1) the law must create minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with enforcement of the statute; and (2) the law must provide a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the proscribed conduct.

[¶ 21] "All laws must meet two requirements to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge: (1) the law must create minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with enforcement of the statute; and (2) the law must provide a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the proscribed conduct." City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 10, 729 N.W.2d 120. We use the "reasonable person" standard in reviewing a statute to determine whether these two dictates are satisfied.

City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 19, 729 N.W.2d 120. However, the difference in complexity between a law prohibiting conduct like "unreasonable noise" and one requiring a physician to use "reasonable medical judgment" cannot be denied.

Another source defines “excessive” as “exceeding the usual, proper, or normal ... very large, great, or numerous ... greater than usual ... describes whatever notably exceeds the reasonable, usual, proper, necessary, just, or endurable....” Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 792 (16th ed.1971).City of Belfield, N.D. v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 20, 729 N.W.2d 120. EOG contends that regardless of whether the generator noise constitutes a nuisance, the Kartches cannot recover because they could have addressed the problem by granting an easement to Mountrail–Williams Electric Cooperative. The North Dakota Supreme Court has explained:

Id. at ¶ 21. See also City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 8, 729 N.W.2d 120. In construing statutes, we give the words used in the statute their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are specifically defined or contrary intention plainly appears.

“All laws must meet two requirements to survive a void-for-vagueness challenge: (1) the law must create minimum guidelines for the reasonable police officer, judge, or jury charged with enforcement of the statute; and (2) the law must provide a reasonable person with adequate and fair warning of the proscribed conduct.”State v. Brown, 2009 ND 150, ¶ 33, 771 N.W.2d 267 (quoting City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 10, 729 N.W.2d 120). “A statute is not unconstitutionally vague ‘if the challenged language, when measured by common understanding and practice, gives adequate warning of the conduct proscribed and marks boundaries sufficiently distinct for fair administration of the law.’ ” State v. Holbach, 2009 ND 37, ¶ 24, 763 N.W.2d 761 (quoting In re Disciplinary Action Against McGuire, 2004 ND 171, ¶ 19, 685 N.W.2d 748).

”City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 10, 729 N.W.2d 120 (internal citations omitted). Although the void for vagueness argument was not addressed in Bienek because it was raised for the first time on appeal, Bienek nonetheless is controlling for Hamre's void for vagueness argument.

We also note that a number of courts have upheld similar qualitative noise standards against void-for-vagueness challenges. See, e.g., Howard Opera House Assocs. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 322 F.3d 125, 127–28 (2d Cir.2003) (holding that City of Burlington noise ordinance prohibiting “unreasonable noise” which “endangers the health, safety or welfare of the community” was not unconstitutionally vague); Reeves v. McConn, 631 F.2d 377, 386 (5th Cir.1980) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance prohibiting sound amplification that was “unreasonably loud ... or a nuisance”); City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶¶ 1, 14–19, 729 N.W.2d 120 (rejecting void-for vagueness challenge to ordinance prohibiting “nuisance in the form of excessive ... barking”). We agree with those decisions and do not find the ordinance here so vague that it is essentially without an ascertainable standard.

We also construe statutes to avoid constitutional infirmities. E.g., City of Belfield v.Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶ 8, 729 N.W.2d 120. [¶ 11] In Kjolsrud v. MKB Management Corp., 2003 ND 144, ¶ 12, 669 N.W.2d 82, this Court "recognized the Legislature may not expand the scope of a judge's duties beyond the judiciary's institutional role," and said "courts perform judicial functions and do not render advisory opinions on abstract disagreements" under our constitutional framework for the separation of powers.