Home/North Dakota Supreme Court/Solen Public School District No. 3 v. State Board of Public School Education

Solen Public School District No. 3 v. State Board of Public School Education

351 N.W.2d 435, 1984 N.D. LEXIS 332
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 28, 1984
DocketCiv. No. 10607
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 351 N.W.2d 435 (Solen Public School District No. 3 v. State Board of Public School Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Solen Public School District No. 3 v. State Board of Public School Education, 351 N.W.2d 435, 1984 N.D. LEXIS 332 (N.D. 1984).

Opinions

PEDERSON, Justice.

Solen has appealed from a district court judgment affirming State Board orders approving two petitions to annex parts of the Solen district to the Flasher district. We reverse.

Pursuant to Chapter 15-53.1, NDCC, several electors filed petitions for the attachment of territory located in the Solen district to the Flasher district. After proceedings were conducted at the county level, the State Board held hearings and issued orders approving the annexation petitions. Solen appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Board’s orders.

While Solen has presented several issues for review, we deem one matter relating to the school districts’ boundaries to be dis-positive.

Section 15-53.1-06, NDCC, requires the Board to make specific findings with reference to every one of 15 factors to which testimony or documentary evidence was directed. One of those factors is Section 15-53. l-06(3)(d): “The size, geographical features, and boundaries of the districts;

[436]*436...” The Board made no findings on that factor. The Board conceded in its brief that “some testimony was submitted regarding the geographical features and boundaries of the land involved in the annexation petitions.”

Thus, it is clear that the Board failed to make findings required by Section 15-53.1-06, NDCC. We will not, however, remand for the purpose of making findings, as counsel for the Board acknowledged at oral argument that making additional findings on this factor would not change the results.

Section 15-53.1-20(5), NDCC, provides, in pertinent part:

“No reorganization plan or annexation proceedings shall be approved by the county committee or state board unless it shall have logical boundaries following a uniform pattern without undue irregularities.” 1

The school district map reveals that although the parcels of land sought to be annexed to the Flasher district would be totally surrounded by parcels remaining in the Solen district they meet the “contiguous” requirement of Section 15-53.1-05, NDCC, in that they “are in actual contact at least to the extent of touching at a common corner.”2 The map also, however, graphically reveals that the school district [437]*437boundaries resulting from approval of the annexation petitions involved are not “logical boundaries following a uniform pattern without undue irregularities.” Section 15-53.1-20(5), NDCC.

[436]*436

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

New Town Public School District No. 1 v. State Board of Public School Education of State of North Dakota
2002 ND 127 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)
In Re the Annexation of a Part of Donnybrook Public School District No. 24
365 N.W.2d 514 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1985)
Matter of Annex. of Part of Solen Pub. Sch. Dist.
351 N.W.2d 435 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
351 N.W.2d 435, 1984 N.D. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solen-public-school-district-no-3-v-state-board-of-public-school-nd-1984.