Court Opinion

ID: 9696433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:47:53.877866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:22.268912
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring specialty-
I concur in the law pronounced by the majority but I do not agree that we should *520encourage avoiding the rules. The City of Fargo moved to dismiss Arneson’s appeal because the trial court did not make an express determination that there is no just reason for delay nor an express direction to enter a final judgment as contemplated by Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P. At oral argument, counsel withdrew the motion and counsel for both parties “stipulated” to a waiver of Rule 54(b). In Minch v. City of Fargo, 297 N.W.2d 785, 789 (N.D.1980), we said: “The rule does not recognize any type of stipulation to nullify its operation.” We ought to declare the summary judgment in favor of the City of Fargo to be interlocutory and dismiss the appeal. That would permit the trial court to again consider the adequacy of the complaint to state a cause of action, not in tort but under the provision of Section 16 of the Constitution of North Dakota (formerly § 14) in inverse condemnation.