Court Opinion

ID: 9707970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:26:14.074274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:40.709419
License: Public Domain

ERICKSTAD, Judge
(concurring specially) .
I concur in the result of the opinion written by Judge Teigen only because it provides that the injunction against the REC shall be stayed until the REC is compensated for its property situated within the newly annexed area to the City of Crosby. Were not proper compensation paid to the REC and were not the injunction stayed until proper compensation were paid to the REC, the injunction would result in the taking of property without due process of law.
In the event that eminent domain proceedings are necessary on the part of MDU, it would be my view that until such time as the statutes are clarified that emi*734nent domain proceedings could be properly undertaken under Chapter 32-15, N.D.C.C.
Section 32-15-02, Subsection 4, N.D.C.C., permits the right of eminent domain to be exercised in the taking of electric light plants and power transmission lines.
Section 32-15-04, N.D.C.C., permits the taking of private property which has already been appropriated to public use, provided the use for which it is to be taken is for a “more necessary public use”. Section 32-15-04, Subsection 3, N.D.C.C.
Also significant is Section 32-15-05, N. D.C.C., which reads:
“What must appear before property taken. — Before property can be taken it must appear:
“1. That the use to which it is to be applied is a use authorized by law;
“2. That the taking is necessary to such use; and
“3. If already appropriated to some public use, that the public use to which it is to be applied is a more necessary public use.”
It is my view that the annexation and the lack of a franchise on the part of the REC from the City of Crosby are proof of a more necessary public use, within the requirement of Section 32-15-05, Subsection 3, N.D.C.C.
STRUTZ, C. J., and KNUDSON, J., concur.