North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
81 - 88 of 88 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #81 ·
Dick Monson said:
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
Dick, you shouldn't try to read into more than what is there.

First:

The court denied the State's motions for summary judgment on the affirmative defenses of laches and the statute of limitations.
(laches; the State was sleeping on its rights.)

Second:

The court also denied Audubon's motion for summary judgment based on the "alleged" violations of the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
(estoppel by laches; precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse.)

Dick, the court simply had no need to procede to the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law.

Crosslands Inc. is a whole different can of worms. One thing about the Corporate Farming Law is that either the land is totally closed to hunting because it is a preserve or resting place or the land is totally open to hunting. I beleive Jim Cook posted the land and used it for hunting with his buddies. Strike one.

He can actually do that. Purchase it in his own name, own it as an absentee landlord, farm it, rent it out or whatever. Just can't own it in the name of an out of State Corporation. What is he splitting hairs about? He can sell the 949 acres of Crosslands INC. holdings to himself as a private individual.

http://www.ndcourts.gov/court/opinions/20090199.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #83 ·
The ND Supreme Court chose not to address the corporate farming law with the laches defense. What is unusual is if one Googles laches, the explanation is that courts seldom use it. Hummm... But, it doesn't matter since Audubon won the case.

Just thinking farther out, since SCOUTS had decided in 2010 that "corporations are people", how can state law discriminate against a minority like corporations? Odd deal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
Dick wrote,

Just thinking farther out, since SCOUTS had decided in 2010 that "corporations are people", how can state law discriminate against a minority like corporations? Odd deal.
The SCOTUS also found in favour of the city of New London vs Kelo that a city can take your property for economic use. We the people believed the SCOTUS got it wrong. Odd deal ya think?

North Dakota didn't even have a legislative session in 2006, yet it still managed to pass one of the nation's strongest constitutional amendments because of the hard work of concerned citizens. A citizen initiative placed an amendment on the ballot that declared, "a public use or a public purpose does not include public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health. Private property shall not be taken for the use of, or ownership by, any private individual or entity, unless that property is necessary for conducting a common carrier or utility business."

When this amendment was presented to voters during the November 2006 elections, it found overwhelming support. While North Dakota has not had nearly the problems with eminent domain abuse that have been characteristic in other states, residents can be proud that they have ensured the strongest possible protection for essential property rights. This state's successful reforms are a shining example to all American citizens of what is possible when people resolve to stand up for their freedoms.

In 2007, Senate Bill 2214 was signed into law, amending the Century Code to reflect the changes made by Measure 2.

Dick, there is one helleva bunch of people that think the SCOTUS got the one corporation equals one person argument wrong also.

Dick, I collected signatures for the reform the eminent domain law. Fell one the right side of that one too. No accident.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
Discussion Starter · #85 ·
shaug said:
Dick wrote,

Just thinking farther out, since SCOUTS had decided in 2010 that "corporations are people", how can state law discriminate against a minority like corporations? Odd deal.
The SCOTUS also found in favour of the city of New London vs Kelo that a city can take your property for economic use. We the people believed the SCOTUS got it wrong. Odd deal ya think? ............

..........Dick, there is one helleva bunch of people that think the SCOTUS got the one corporation equals one person argument wrong also.

Dick, I collected signatures for the reform the eminent domain law. Fell one the right side of that one too. No accident.
No disagreement there, Dwight. However we're stuck with the road we drive unless we change it ourselves through the process.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
842 Posts
It's not that we are stuck with the road we drive ....... as much as you need to stop driving on the wrong side of the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
525 Posts
I don't think the SCOTUS ruled that a city could take private property to benefit a corporation. I think they said the US Constitution does not prohibit such. Fine point is that if people do not like that, they should pass laws or state constitution amendments to prohibit such actions. The US constitution does not address all issues. It leaves many decisions to the States...as well it should.
 
81 - 88 of 88 Posts
Top