Court Opinion

ID: 9870521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:02:31.887919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:09.802227
License: Public Domain

Sandstrom, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 15] I agree with the majority that the basis for a district court decision reversing an administrative agency order must have been properly raised by a party at the administrative level.
[¶ 16] I write separately to note that a party appealing to the district court from an administrative agency’s order to suspend driving privileges must file specifications of error that “identify what matters are truly at issue with sufficient specificity to fairly apprise the agency, other parties, and the court of the particular errors claimed.” Vetter v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 554 N.W.2d 451, 454 (N.D.1996). General or imprecise specifications of error are insufficient. Dettler v. Sprynczynatyk, 2004 ND 54, ¶15, 676 N.W.2d 799. Review on appeal is limited to those issues identified with particularity in the specification of error. Johnson v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2010 ND 198, ¶ 16, 789 N.W.2d 565. This recognizes the constitutional separation of powers under N.D. Const, art. XI, § 26, and the limitation of appellate jurisdiction under N.D. Const. art. VI, §§ 6 and 8, and N.D.C.C. § 39-20-06.
[¶ 17] This appeal'fails on both grounds. Not only was the basis for the district court reversing not raised at the administrative level, it was also not one of the specifications of error identified in the appeal to the district court.
[¶ 18] Dale V. Sandstrom