Court Opinion

ID: 9677745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:58:27.751502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:58.166781
License: Public Domain

SAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in Justice Paulson’s opinion for the additional reason that the state constitution is an instrument of limitations rather than an instrument of grants. State ex rel Agnew v. Schneider, 253 N.W.2d 184 (N.D.1977), Verry v. Trenbeath, 148 N.W.2d 567 (N.D.1967) and the numerous cases cited in support of this principle of law.
Without the provisions contained in Section 9, Article I, of the North Dakota Constitution, the legislature under its plenary authority could have modified or waived governmental immunity. Furthermore our government does not require, nor does it engage in, idle acts. This raises the rhetorical question: If the legislature had authority to provide how, when and under what conditions the state could be sued or waive governmental immunity without the constitutional provisions contained in Section 9, Article I, why was it put in the constitution? The obvious answer is that the people wanted and did limit this authority to the legislature. This conclusion is in complete harmony with the basic concept that state constitutions are instruments of limitations as distinguished from the United States Constitution which is an instrument of grants.
VANDE WALLE, J., concurs.