Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Cossette v. Cass County Joint Water Resource District

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 16, 2017No. 20160311Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTufte, Justice

[¶ 18] I concur with the portion of the majority opinion dismissing the Cossettes’ request for declaratory relief. I respectfully dissent from that part reversing the district court on the issue of whether the Cossettes are “aggrieved” and thus entitled to appeal.

[¶ 19] Section 61-16.1-54, N.D.C.C., permits an appeal “to the district court from any order or decision of the water resource board by any person aggrieved.” Because “aggrieved” is not a defined term, we interpret it in its ordinary sense. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-02. A dictionary frequently provides us with a reliable starting point in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Douville v. Pembina County Water Resource DistrictNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Treiber v. Citizens State BankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Bernhardt v. RummelNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Huber v. MillerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960
  5. King v. Stark CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API