Legal Opinion · Dissent

Vogel v. Marathon Oil Corporation

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 2016No. 20150154Published

1DissentKapsner, Justice

[¶ 52] I respectfully dissent. Vogel has asserted a proper cause of action under the Environmental Law Enforcement Act of 1975 (“ELEA”). The majority’s holding both frustrates the purpose of the ELEA and disregards its plain language.

[¶ 53] In paragraphs 23 and 24, the majority quotes N.D.C.C. § 32-40-06, which authorizes a person aggrieved by the violation of an environmental statute to bring action in district court and acknowledges that N.D.C.C. § 32-40-03(2) is an environmental statute as defined by the ELEA. However, the majority’s holding eviscerates the ELEA by requiring an aggrieved…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ray v. Mason County Drain CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Trade 'N Post, L.L.C. v. World Duty Free Americas, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Department of Environmental QualityMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State Ex Rel. Schaller v. County of Blue EarthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  5. Meier v. NovakNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983

3 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