Dick Monson wrote:North Dakota Supreme Court Opinions Filed Apr. 8, 2014
http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20130279.htm
¶40] We affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the State's corporate farming enforcement action against Audubon, concluding the equitable defense of laches bars the State's divestiture claim. We decline to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law because the affirmative defense of laches provides an alternative basis upon which the case may be resolved.
[¶41] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Carol Ronning Kapsner
Daniel J. Crothers
Allan L. Schmalenberger, S.J.
[¶42] The Honorable Allan L. Schmalenberger, S.J., sitting in place of McEvers, J., disqualified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would seem to a layman that the ND Supreme Court was possibly unwilling to address the constitutionality of the ND Corporate Farming Law. Audubon won another round. ND versus Jim Cook might decide the issue.
Old people need more sleep Dwight. Anyway, I know nothing about law but the whole opinion is a good educational read, especially the dissenting opinion. Which leads one to ask, why the court would decline to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law?