Court Opinion

ID: 9717585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:06:30.047756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:54.144408
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring in the results.
In my view all versions of the “bad check” law have been valid. I did not agree with the majority in Fischer nor in Carpenter; accordingly, I do not accept the stated reasons for upholding the 1981 version of § 6-08-16, NDCC. I cannot envision a bad check law that is not based upon the principle that checks can be written only by people who have funds. That *136basic principle is, of course, “discriminatory” against people who have no funds. It is not “invidious.” Creating an after-the-fact method of distinguishing errors in balancing a checking account from “passing rubber checks” is a proper objective for legislative action and our entire commercial system is dependent upon it.