Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners
North Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
VOGEL, Judge.
The only question before us is the construction of Section 40-11-02, North Dakota Century Code (set forth in full, infra), as applied to- the peculiar facts presented by this case. Otherwise stated, we must decide whether Ordinance No. 1444 of the City of Fargo was passed. The controversy arises because Section 40-11-02 requires for the passage of a city ordinance that “. . .a majority of all of the members of the governing body must concur in the passage . . .” and upon the first reading of the ordinance two of the five members of the commission voted “yea,” two were absent, and…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Rushville Gas Co. v. City of RushvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Pimental v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Cascaden v. City of WaterlooSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- O'Neil v. TylerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- State ex rel. Young v. YatesMontana Supreme Court · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Littlefield v. City of AftonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986
- Application of Bank of RhameNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
- Rock v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Hager v. Devils Lake Public School DistrictNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Jensen v. TURNER COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.