Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Eckre v. Public Service Commission

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1976No. Civ. 9225Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partVogel, Justice

We concur in the result, but only because compliance with the Energy Conversion and Transmission Facility Siting Act, Chapter 49-22, North Dakota Century Code, may supply the due process we believe to be otherwise lacking in the notice given to the landowners involved in this case. We understand the majority opinion as requiring compliance with the Act.

Dome’s pipeline project was the subject of years of planning and preparation. On July 27, 1973, it was sufficiently definite so that an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity could be made. No notice was given to the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. McGuire v. WARDEN OF STATE FARM, ETC.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Ellingson v. M. L.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API