Court Opinion

ID: 9670307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:18:42.928956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.800879
License: Public Domain

*593SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring.
I agree "with the majority opinion. I write separately in response to the Chief Justice’s suggestion the legislature could clarify the meaning of the statute. That is certainly an option in the hands- of others. In the meantime, I note:
“We have often held that in construing a statute of doubtful meaning the court will give weight to the long-continued, practical construction placed thereon by the officers charged with the duty of executing and applying the statute. Giese v. Engelhardt, 175 N.W.2d 578 (N.D.1970); Blair v. City of Fargo, 171 N.W.2d 236 (N.D.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 990, 90 S.Ct. 1123, 25 L.Ed.2d 397 (1970); Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689 (N.D.1966); State Tax Commissioner v. Tuchscherer, 130 N.W.2d 608 (N.D.1964).”
Horst v. Guy, 219 N.W.2d 153, 159 (N.D.1974).
The long-established, practical construction of the agency required a customer request.
LEVINE, J., concurs.