Court Opinion

ID: 9720528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:34:04.74855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:19.116481
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON,
Justice, concurring specialty-
Recently Justice Stevens said in a concurring opinion that if the court was prepared to reexamine the area of law involved, he would vote to reverse. “. . . But my views are not now the law. The opinion *401that The Chief Justice has written is faithful to the cases on which it relies. For that reason ... I join his opinion.” Pinkus v. United States, 436 U.S. 293, 98 S.Ct. 1808, 56 L.Ed.2d 293 (1978).
Although I join in the results reached by Justice Sand because I see no alternative, my reluctance is like I expressed in my concurrence in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Knutson, 278 N.W.2d 383 (N.D.1979). The approximately 36% increase in premium which will now be authorized appears to me to be excessive — but my opinion is not controlling. The all-or-nothing requirement in Chapter 26-28, NDCC, almost assures unsatisfactory results. I think that we have failed to limit our scope of review within the bounds set forth in the Administrative Agencies Practice Act (§§ 28-32-19 and 28-32-21, NDCC), and will find it necessary, in the future, to make some fine distinctions when asked to apply the same rule in other administrative agency appeals.