Court Opinion

ID: 9519794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:24:58.379212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:22.920196
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 21] In this case we vacate the district court’s judgment because “the district court did not have jurisdiction.” I agree with that disposition. I write separately only to note that a court has the jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction of the subject matter and jurisdiction of the parties. James River Nat’l Bank v. Haas, 73 N.D. 374, 380, 15 N.W.2d 442, 445 (1944). A district court’s determination that it had no jurisdiction would be appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02. Thus, if we agreed with the district court that it had no jurisdiction we would ordinarily affirm that decision, not vacate it.
[¶ 22] Here the district court denied Brown’s request for review of the decision of the hearing officer. Part of that decision was the conclusion that the Burleigh County Housing Authority was not a state agency within the definition of N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32, the Administrative Agencies Practices Act.. The district court would therefore be without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of the Bur-leigh County Housing Authority under that Act. To that extent it might appear we should affirm the judgment of the district court rather than vacate it. However, as our opinion notes, the district court, without jurisdiction to do so in the first instance, ordered the hearing which resulted in that conclusion. I therefore agree that *517the proper disposition of this appeal is to vacate the district court’s judgment rather than affirming that judgment.
[¶ 28] DANIEL J. CROTHERS, J., concurs.