Legal Opinion

Haugland v. City of Bismarck

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 2012No. 20110077PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SANDSTROM, Justice.

[¶ 1] Erling “Curly” Haugland appeals and the City of Bismarck cross-appeals from a summary judgment declaring North Dakota’s Urban Renewal Law, N.D.C.C. ch. 40-58 (“the Act”), is not un constitutional and Bismarck’s implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund urban renewal projects in its urban renewal area complies with the Act. Haugland claims the Act violates the gift clause provisions of N.D. Const, art. X, § 18, the requirements for imposing taxes in N.D. Const, art. X, §§ 8 and 5, and the equal protection provisions of the state…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Lang v. City of CavalierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  2. State v. Miami Beach Redevelopment AgencySupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  3. State v. Nelson CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Ferch v. Housing Authority of Cass CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
  5. State Ex Rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2006

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hale v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Sorum v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  3. State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve FundNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  4. State v. GargNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bahr-RennerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014

11 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