State v. Ehr

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Clark

    367 N.W.2d 168 (N.D. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    In Clark, the Delaware Court cites to civil revival cases then announces, first, that nothing prevents applying the rule in the criminal context, second, that the question is "solely a matter of state law," and third, that there is no due process notice violation.

    It is well established that unconstitutional legislation is void and is to be treated as if it never were enacted. State v. Piekkola, 90 S.D. 335, 241 N.W.2d 563 (1976); State v. Bardsley, 177 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 1970); see also, First Bank of Buffalo v. Conrad, 350 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1984). Therefore, when legislation that is enacted to repeal, amend or otherwise modify an existing statute, is declared unconstitutional, it is a nullity and cannot affect the existing statute in any manner. Rather, the extant statute remains operative without regard to the unsuccessful and invalid legislation.State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883 (1928); Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S.Ct. 235, 73 L.Ed. 483 (1929); see also, State v. Mundy, 53 N.D. 249, 205 N.W. 684 (1925); 1A Sutherland, Statutory Construction, § 22.37 (3d ed. 1972). This rule applies whether or not the amendments contain a repealing clause.

  2. Tooz v. State

    76 N.D. 599 (N.D. 1949)   Cited 20 times
    Stating severance is preferred and "[i]t would be inconsistent with all just principles of constitutional law to adjudge these enactments void because they are associated in the same act, but not connected with or dependent on others which are unconstitutional"

    A statute may be in part constitutional and in part unconstitutional. Indeed the constitutional and unconstitutional provisions may be contained in the same section and yet be perfectly distinct and separable so that the first may stand though the last fall. 11 Am Jur 834, 839, Constitutional Law, § 152; 1 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed pp 359 et seq.; 59 CJ pp 639-640; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; State ex rel Hughes v. Milhollan, 50 N.D. 184, 195 N.W. 292, supra; State ex rel. Fargo v. Wetz, 40 N.D. 299, 168 N.W. 835, 5 ALR 731; Weller v. New York, 268 U.S. 319, 69 L ed 978, 45 S Ct 556; Champlin Ref. Co. v. Corporation Commission, 286 U.S. 210, 76 L ed 1062, 52 S Ct 559, 86 ALR 403. "It is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part and that if the invalid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out and rejected."

  3. State ex rel. Lashkowitz v. Cass County

    158 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1968)   Cited 2 times

    This is also the law in North Dakota. In Menz v. Coyle, 117 N.W.2d 290 (N.D.); Kessler v. Thompson, 75 N.W.2d 172 (N.D.); Department of State Highways v. Baker, 69 N.D. 702, 290 N.W. 257, 129 A.L.R. 925; State ex rel. Cleveringa v. Klein, 63 N.D. 514, 249 N.W. 118, 86 A.L.R. 1523; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; State v. Bickford, 28 N.D. 36, 147 N.W. 407, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 140; Malin v. La Moure County, 27 N.D. 140, 145 N.W. 582, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 997, Ann.Cas. 1916C, 207; Becker County Sand Gravel Co. v. Wosick, 62 N.D. 740, 245 N.W. 454. In my opinion the objectionable clause contained in Section 11-07-04, quoted above, which is violative of the constitution, may be stricken and there still remains a complete and workable scheme of legislation which is wholly unaffected as to purpose and efficacy by the part eliminated.

  4. State v. Williams

    150 N.W.2d 844 (N.D. 1967)   Cited 15 times
    In State v. Williams, 150 N.W.2d 844 (N.D. 1967), this court approved an instruction to the jury to this effect for the crime of larceny of an automobile, when given with instructions placing the burden of proof upon the State to show all of the elements of larceny beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It is a well-established and wholesome rule of law that no one can take advantage of the unconstitutionality of any provision who has no interest in and is not affected by it. State v. McNulty, 7 N.D. 169, 73 N.W. 87; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883. The challenged statute is severable. The first part makes larceny of an automobile or motorcycle a felony, and the second part thereof establishes the presumption of intent.

  5. Kessler v. Thompson

    75 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 1956)   Cited 29 times
    Stating that a "statute will, if possible, be so construed as to render it valid"

    "It is a fundamental principle that a statute may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another part and that if the valid part is severable from the rest, the portion which is constitutional may stand while that which is unconstitutional is stricken out and rejected." 11 Am.Jur. Constitutional Law, Partial Unconstitutionality of Statutes, Section 152, page 834; State ex rel. Cleveringa v. Klein, 63 N.D. 514, 249 N.W. 118, 86 A.L.R. 1523; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 211 N.W. 883; State v. Bickford, 28 N.D. 36, 147 N.W. 407, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 140; Malin v. LaMoure County, 27 N.D. 140, 145 N.W. 582, 50 L.R.A., N.S., 997, Ann.Cas. 1916C, 207; Becker County Sand Gravel Co. v. Wosick, 62 N.D. 740, 245 N.W. 545; 6 R.C.L., Constitutional Law, Section 121, page 121; Department of State Highways v. Baker, 69 N.D. 702, 290 N.W. 257, 258, 129 A.L.R. 925. In this last case this court held:

  6. City of New Orleans v. Levy

    64 So. 2d 798 (La. 1953)   Cited 32 times
    Rejecting the plaintiff's facial invalidity and equal protection challenges to portions of historic preservation ordinance prohibiting his placement of illuminated sign and pink plastic on building

    The unconstitutional amending statute or ordinance is in reality no law, and in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. State v. Dalcourt, 112 La. 420, 36 So. 479; State v. Donato, 127 La. 393, 53 So. 662; City of Shreveport v. Kahn, 136 La. 371, 67 So. 35; State v. Boylston, 138 La. 21, 69 So. 860; Frost v. Corporation Commission, 278 U.S. 515, 49 S.Ct. 235, 73 L.Ed. 483; People v. C. Klinck Packing Company, 214 N.Y. 121, 108 N.E. 278; City of Chicago v. Churchill Cabinet Company, 379 Ill. 351, 40 N.E.2d 518; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; Ex parte Masters, 126 Okla. 80, 258 P. 861; Dupree v. State, 184 Ark. 1120, 44 S.W.2d 1097; 11 Am.Juris., verbo Constitutional Law, Sec. 154, pg. 841; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3rd Ed., Vol. 3, Sec. 2412, pg. 189; Crawford, Statutory Construction, Secs. 124 and 320, pgs. 182 and 652.

  7. Dawson v. Tobin

    74 N.D. 713 (N.D. 1946)   Cited 17 times
    In Dawson v. Tobin, 74 N.D. 713, 24 N.W.2d 737 (1946), the court pointed out that new amendments supersede the old amendments when they are in conflict.

    State ex rel. Langer v. Crawford, 36 N.D. 385, 162 N.W. 710; State ex rel. Hay v. Alderson, 49 Mont. 407, 142 P. 213; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; Talbot v. Des Moines, 218 Iowa 1397, 257 N.W. 393. By the terms of the act, any person whose legal relations are affected by the statute may ask a determination by the courts of his rights.

  8. Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Murphy

    12 N.W.2d 71 (N.D. 1943)   Cited 1 times

    The constitutional and unconstitutional provisions of a statute may be included in one and the same section and yet be separable, so that some stand while others fall. State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; State v. Fairmont Creamery Co. 153 Iowa 702, 133 NW 895, 42 LRA(NS) 821; State v. Drayton, 82 Neb. 254, 117 N.W. 768; Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157, 57 L ed 164, 33 S Ct 66; affirming 24 S.D. 136, 123 N.W. 504, 42 LRA(NS) 804. M.K. Higgins (Leonard A. Flansburg, Charles H. Flansburg and M.S. Hartman of counsel) for respondent.

  9. Wiseth v. Traill County Teleph. Co.

    291 N.W. 689 (N.D. 1940)   Cited 1 times

    In performing its duties it must be permitted to proceed in a practical way so as to accomplish the lawful results intended. G.O. Miller Teleph. Co. v. Minimum Wage Commission, 145 Minn. 262, 177 N.W. 341; State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883. BURR, J.

  10. State v. Safeway Stores, Inc.

    76 P.2d 81 (Mont. 1938)   Cited 34 times

    ( Hilger v. Moore, 56 Mont. 146, 182 P. 477; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 39 Mont. 64, 70, 101 P. 250; State v. Hammond Packing Co., 45 Mont. 343, 123 P. 407; Cunningham v. Northwestern Imp. Co., 44 Mont. 180, 119 P. 554; State v. McKinney, 29 Mont. 375, 74 P. 1095; City of Butte v. Paltrovich, 30 Mont. 18, 75 P. 521, 104 Am. St. Rep. 698; State v. Loomis, 75 Mont. 88, 97, 242 P. 344.) Classifications based on differences in population are reasonable. ( Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 44 Sup. Ct. 325, 68 L.Ed. 690; Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 44 Sup. Ct. 257, 68 L.Ed. 596; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 35 Sup. Ct. 342, 59 L.Ed. 628; Hayes v. State of Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L.Ed. 578; Stettler v. O'Hara, 69 Or. 519, 139 P. 743, 749, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 217, L.R.A. 1917C, 944 (affirmed without opinion 243 U.S. 629, 37 Sup. Ct. 475, 61 L.Ed. 937); State v. Ehr, 57 N.D. 310, 221 N.W. 883; People v. Elerding, 254 Ill. 579, 98 N.E. 982, 985, 40 L.R.A. (n.s.) 893; Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U.S. 265, 39 Sup. Ct. 273, 63 L.Ed. 597, 598; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 Sup. Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369.) MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the court.