Court Opinion

ID: 9852496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:31:41.314049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:28.732266
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In this case the trial court made no finding of fact nor conclusion of law that § 25-09-04, N.D.C.C., or any part thereof, was violative of the North Dakota Constitution. Accordingly, the judgment did not hold the statute unconstitutional. We are apparently asked to assume such finding, conclusion, or judgment.
The record does not show that the Attorney General was served and afforded an opportunity to appear as required by § 32-23-11, N.D.C.C., when a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional. However, counsel for Hospital Services, Inc., stated orally that he has an appointment as a Special Assistant Attorney General and, in that capacity, has an understanding with the Attorney General that he will represent the State when such issues arise. This hardly suffices to fulfill an obvious intent that the State has a separate and independent interest to protect when legislative enactments are challenged as to validity.
Legislative enactments are entitled to every presumption of constitutionality and such presumption should prevail unless it is shown that it is manifestly violative of organic law. The challenger has the burden of proving that the statute does not apply uniformly within a class of persons or that the class is based upon an unreasonable distinction or that it is an unnatural classification. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Gray, 77 N.D. 757, 46 N.W.2d 295 (1951); Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438 (1943). It appears to me that the trial court, and the majority opinion, places the burden on the appellant, rather than giving him the benefit of the presumption.
“The justice, wisdom, necessity, utility or expediency of a law which is within their powers are for the lawmakers.” Asbury Hospital, supra, at 454. Even though we might disagree with the moral principle involved, a classification based upon a moral principle is not legally invalid.
If the relationship is so unique between a farmer and antelope which might feed on his crops so as to justify putting such farmer in a hunting-license class distinct from all other persons, as this court held in State v. Miller, 129 N.W.2d 356 (N.D.1964), I see no problem in finding the necessary uniqueness in the relationship between a mother and her adult son to warrant putting that son in a class distinct from all other persons for the purpose of determining responsibility for care of his mother in a state institution.
If that part of § 25-09-04, which was amended out by the 1971 Legislative Assembly, is invalid because a parent-child relationship is not adequate to support a classification based wholly on that relationship, then the remainder of § 25-09-04, and those provisions in Chapter 14-09, N.D.C.C., which base certain legal obligations upon parent-child or husband-wife relationships, all are doomed.
Although the majority opinion states that it does not rely entirely on the California *77holdings in Kirchner and Swoap (cited in the majority opinion) which appear to say that California has adopted a complete social welfare approach toward those committed to state institutions, neither does the majority rely upon the holding of any other court, all of which holdings are contrary to the majority opinion.
I am not persuaded by the showing in this case nor by the obfuscated precedents of the California holdings. The reasoning in State, Rev. Div. of Dept, of Tr. v. Estate of Raseman, 18 Mich.App. 91, 170 N.W.2d 503 (1969), is logical and convincing, and expresses my view.
When the majority tries to limit its holding to cases where there is an “involuntary commitment,” it assumes a fact which is not clearly supported by the record. The record discloses that the commitment was handled by the county court. The records of that commitment are not before us. We are not told that the appellee did not institute the commitment proceedings.
Appellee has not shown that the statute is palpably arbitrary, impractical, or unreasonable. I would therefore reverse and remand for trial on the merits. I do not believe that costs should be allowed.