costs under the terms of the state ’ s lease . The Court concluded the gross proceeds from which the royalty payments were determined could not be reduced to account for post-production costs to make the gas marketable under the terms of the lease . The Court remanded for additional proceedings . The district court held on the prior remand that the state failed to establish a breach of contract because it could not prove a contract , lease , or other obligation existed between the parties . The district court entered judgment dismissing the state ’ s claim .
In the most recent appeal , the Court held that N . D . C . C . § 47- 16-39.1 requires a lessee or well operator to pay royalties under an oil and gas lease . If an operator , in this case , Newfield , fails to pay royalties , the operator “ shall pay interest on the unpaid royalties .” Because the state satisfied the pleading and proof requirements of N . D . C . C . § 47-16-39.1 , the Court held the district court erred in concluding the state did not prove Newfield owed it a legal obligation to pay additional royalties . The Court held that the trial on remand should have focused on the state ’ s damages and Newfield ’ s affirmative defenses , not whether the state could prove a breach of each lease involved in the action .
Nw . Landowners Ass ' n v . State , 2022 ND 150 , 978 N . W . 2d 679 , reh ’ g denied ( Aug . 25 , 2022 ). Filed 8 / 4 / 2022 .
The Court affirmed the district court ’ s decision granting summary judgment for the Northwest Landowners Association , holding that portions of Senate Bill 2344 , which related to the use of subsurface pore space without compensation to the landowner , were an unconstitutional takings by the state under both the state and federal takings clauses .
In 2019 , the legislative assembly enacted S . B . 2344 . Section 1 of S . B . 2344 , amending N . D . C . C . § 38-08-25 , provided an oil and gas operator could use a landowner ’ s subsurface pore space without compensating the landowner . The association sued the state , challenging the constitutionality of S . B . 2344 on its face , arguing it was a taking because it deprived landowners of their right to possess and use the pore space , and allowed the state to redistribute that right to others without the landowner ’ s consent and without compensation .
The Court held that the state violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution , and art . I , § 16 of the North Dakota Constitution , which guarantee that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation . The Court began its analysis by holding that , under North Dakota law , the surface owner has long had a property interest in pore space . The Court analyzed the association ’ s physical takings claim under the framework established by the United States Supreme Court in Loretto v . Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp ., 458 U . S . 419 , 102 S . Ct . 3164 , 73 L . Ed . 2d 868 ( 1982 ). The Court held that governmentauthorized physical invasions of property are the “ clearest sort of taking ,” and S . B . 2344 was a per se taking because it allows third-party oil and gas operators to physically invade a landowner ’ s property by injecting substances into the landowner ’ s pore space .
The Court explained that allowing such use of a landowner ’ s pore space “ takes away one of the most treasured property rights because it takes away landowners ’ right to exclude oil and gas operators from trespassing and disposing waste into their pore space .” Surface owners have a constitutional right , under the United States and North Dakota Constitutions , to compensation for the use of their pore space for disposal and storage operations . While an oil and gas operator has an implied easement to dispose of wastewater within the same unit or pool in which its conducting operations , the operator must compensate the surface owner for the disposal of that waste .
The Court also affirmed the district court ’ s award of attorney ’ s fees in favor of the association under 42 U . S . C . §§ 1983 and 1988 as the prevailing party in its civil rights claim against the state . Because the association prevailed on its facial challenge under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments , the Court concluded the district court did not misapply the law or abuse its discretion in awarding fees to the association .
State v . Netterville , 2022 ND 153 . Filed 8 / 4 / 22 .
In 2020 , Netterville pled guilty and was sentenced to 366 days imprisonment and 18 months of probation . In 2021 , after a probation revocation hearing , the district court revoked Netterville ’ s probation and resentenced him to two years imprisonment with no further probation . Netterville appealed , arguing the sentence was illegal because it failed to give him credit for the time previously served . The Court found there was no ambiguity in the sentence , because both the oral pronouncement and the written judgment both articulate Netterville was sentenced to two years in addition to the 366 days he previously served . The Court found N . D . C . C . § 12.1-32-02 requires the sentencing court to give the defendant credit “ for all time spent in custody as a result of the criminal charge for which the sentence was imposed or as a result of the conduct on which such charge was based .” However , a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served in connection with a wholly unrelated charge based on conduct other than for which the defendant is ultimately sentenced . The state argued he was not entitled to credit for time previously served , as the probation revocation was a new matter . The Court disagreed . The Court found the sentencing on the revocation is wholly related to the original charge . An amended judgment entered after revocation must total all time served for the offense to ensure a defendant does not serve more than the maximum possible sentence for the offense . As a result , the Court reversed the judgment , concluding that Netterville should have been sentenced to three years plus one day , with credit for 366 days .
B . C ., by and through his parent Michelle Cox v . N . D . Dept . of Human Services , 2022 ND 152 . Filed 8 / 4 / 2022 .
B . C . appealed a district court judgment affirming the Department of Human Services decision to deny an autism voucher program for a gazebo . B . C . requested a garden gazebo and an outdoor misting system through an autism spectrum voucher grant . B . C .’ s therapist
FALL 2022 19