Court Opinion

ID: 9727830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:56.111935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.342961
License: Public Domain

VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice,
concurring specially.
I- concur in the result which Chief Justice Erickstad has reached, however, I would have couched the opinion in different terms so as to make certain that it would not be misunderstood with respect to the scope of review in the supreme court of administrative determinations that have already been reviewed by a district court either under the Administrative Agencies Practice Act (Ch. 28-32, NDCC) or otherwise.
Recently this court, in Otto v. Job Service North Dakota, 390 N.W.2d 550, 551 (N.D.1986), said that on appeals from administrative determinations:
*189“We review the decision of the agency rather than the decision of the district court ...”
Similar statements are found in: Perske v. Job Service North Dakota, 336 N.W.2d 146 (N.D.1983); Application of Nebraska Public Power Dist, 330 N.W.2d 143, 146 (N.D.1983); Lee v. Gulf Oil Exploration and Production, 318 N.W.2d 766, 768 (N.D.1982); Barnes County v. Garrison Diversion, Etc., 312 N.W.2d 20, 25 (N.D.1981); and Shaw v. Burleigh County, 286 N.W.2d 792, 797 (N.D.1979). See also Geo. E. Haggart, Inc. v. North Dakota Work. Comp. Bur., 171 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1969).