Evans v. Backes

18 Citing cases

  1. Throlson v. Backes

    466 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1991)   Cited 8 times
    Holding failure to inform driver about alcohol charge upon arrest made test request under NDCC 39-20-01 ineffective

    In determining whether the agency's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicable standard is whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined that the facts or conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence. E.g., Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 849 (N.D. 1989). The scope of an administrative hearing on a refusal to submit to testing is limited by Section 39-20-05(3), N.D.C.C. Pursuant to the statute, the hearing may cover only three issues: (1) whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a vehicle in violation of Section 39-08-01, N.D.C.C., or equivalent ordinance; (2) whether the person was placed under arrest; and, (3) whether the person refused to submit to the test or tests.

  2. Keller v. N. Dakota Dep't of Transp.

    2015 N.D. 81 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 4 times
    In Keller, the officer prematurely terminated the Intoxilyzer test sequence before the machine timed out, because Keller provided only one adequate breath sample and either would not or could not provide a second breath sample.

    The court should not have to speculate about factual findings made by the hearing officer or guess at the legal reasoning for the hearing officer's decisions. Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 850–51 (N.D.1989). [¶ 21] While I concur in the result in this case, in the future, when presented with a hearing officer's decision which is so utterly lacking of reasoning, I believe the better practice would be to do as was done in the Evans case.

  3. Singha v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners

    1998 N.D. 42 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    Stating "[e]stoppel against an administrative agency is not freely applied"

    Section 28-32-13, N.D.C.C., generally requires an agency to issue concise and explicit findings of fact and separate conclusions of law which adequately explain the basis of the agency's decision. See, e.g., Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 850-51 (N.D. 1989) (agency required to explicitly state findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate meaningful appellate review). The Board's conclusory decision does not adequately explain the Board's rationale for denying licensure under N.D.C.C. § 43-17-18(3).

  4. Maher v. North Dakota Dept. of Transp

    510 N.W.2d 601 (N.D. 1994)   Cited 8 times

    Review of an administrative agency decision extends to whether the findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact, and whether the agency decision is supported by the conclusions of law. N.D.C.C. § 28-32-19; Bryl v. Backes, 477 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 1991); Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1989). When reviewing whether or not the hearing officer's findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, "we do not make independent findings of fact or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, but determine only whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined that the facts or conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence."

  5. Jesser v. N.D. Dep't of Transp.

    2019 N.D. 287 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    [¶15] We have applied Kuntz to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01. See generallyIn re R.P. , 2008 ND 39, 745 N.W.2d 642 ; Evans v. Backes , 437 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1989). Kuntz only considered refusal of a test after an arrest and did not consider failure to take the onsite screening test. However, we have not expanded the ability to cure a refusal based on the deprivation to consult with an attorney as outlined in Kuntz and we decline to extend Kuntz to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14.

  6. Robinson v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins.

    2019 N.D. 201 (N.D. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    A finding of fact is necessary to dispose of a factual issue, and the need for a finding is particularly pressing where the disputed issue is dispositive of the case. Evans v. Backes , 437 N.W.2d 848, 850 (N.D. 1989). [¶17] We hold the ALJ failed to make any findings of fact to support its conclusion that Robinson’s motion to dismiss be denied as a matter of law. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  7. Schoch v. N.D. Workforce Safety and Ins

    778 N.W.2d 542 (N.D. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    [¶ 19] An administrative agency must adequately explain the basis for the agency's decision to facilitate appellate review. Singha v. North Dakota State Bd. of Medical Exam'rs, 1998 ND 42, ¶ 23, 574 N.W.2d 838; Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 850-51 (N.D. 1989). An agency's findings must sufficiently address the evidence presented by the appellant and must correctly apply the law. See N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46(1) and (7).

  8. Johnson v. North Dakota D.O.T

    2002 N.D. 167 (N.D. 2002)

    Instead, the Court will determine only "whether a reasoning mind could reasonably have determined that the facts or conclusions were supported by the weight of the evidence." Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 849 (N.D. 1989). We conclude the administrative hearing officer's finding that Johnson did not clearly and unambiguously request an independent blood test is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

  9. Berg v. Berg

    2000 N.D. 37 (N.D. 2000)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that when the record does not disclose the evidentiary or theoretical basis for the court's decision, we cannot properly perform our function as an appellate court and a remand is necessary

    When the record does not disclose the evidentiary or theoretical basis for the court's decision, we cannot properly perform our function as an appellate court. Berg v. Berg, 2000 ND 36, ¶ 10; Emter v. Emter, 1999 ND 102, ¶ 8, 595 N.W.2d 16. If we are unable to determine whether the court considered and resolved a critical issue, particularly when conflicting evidence has been presented, remand is necessary to afford the court an opportunity to resolve the issue. See Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 850-51 (N.D. 1989). Accordingly, we reverse the court's order and remand for further consideration and resolution of this issue.

  10. Vernon v. Workers Compensation Bureau

    1999 N.D. 153 (N.D. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Exercising restraint and not substituting our judgment for that of the agency or making independent findings of fact, when deciding if the agency's findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence

    Id. An agency must adequately state its findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate meaningful appellate review. See Singha v. North Dakota Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 1998 ND 42, ¶ 23, 574 N.W.2d 838; Evans v. Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848, 850-51 (N.D. 1989). In other contexts, we have said a mere recitation or summary of evidence is not sufficient to satisfy a trier-of-fact's obligation to make findings of fact.