Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Emil

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 2010No. 20090286, 20090287Published

1DissentSandstrom, Justice

[¶ 14] I respectfully dissent, because the State has complied with the plain language of N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5).

I

[¶ 15] “Appeals shall be allowed from decisions of lower courts to the supreme court as may be provided by law.” N.D. Const, art. VI, § 6. “As such, we have held that the right to appeal in this state is governed solely by statute.” Interest of K.J., 2010 ND 46, ¶ 14, 779 N.W.2d 635. Accordingly, this Court is not entitled to restrict the right to appeal as established by the legislature. See, e.g., In re Heart River Irr. Dist., 78 N.D. 302, 49 N.W.2d 217, 224 (1951) (“Statutes…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. FrankNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Stark v. Heart River Irrigation DistrictNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Bonde v. SternNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
  4. State v. SchindeleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  5. City of Harvey v. FettigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001

1 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