Beylund v. Levi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 21 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The determination whether a statute is unconstitutional is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. All regularly enacted statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality, which is conclusive unless the party challenging the statute clearly demonstrates that it contravenes the state or federal constitution. Any doubt about a statute’s constitutionality must, when possible, be resolved in favor of its validity. The power to declare a legislative act unconstitutional is one of the highest functions of the courts, and that power must be exercised with great restraint. The presumption of constitutionality is so strong that a statute will not be de- dared unconstitutional unless its invalidity is, in the court’s judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving its constitutional infirmity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kordonowy · State v. Baxter

2. ““This Court reviews the Department’s decision to suspend a person’s driving privileges under the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32.” McCoy v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2014 ND 119, ¶ 6 , 848 N.W.2d 659 (citing Painte v. Dir., Dep’t of Transp., 2013 ND 95, ¶ 6 , 832 N.W.2d 319 ). “We review the agency’s decision on appeal from the district court. However, the district court’s analysis is entitled to respect if it is sound.” Herrman v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2014 ND 129, ¶ 6 , 847 N.W.2d 768 (citation omitted) (quotation marks omitted). An agency’s decision is accorded great deference, when reviewed on appeal. McCoy , at ¶ 6. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32^46, we must affirm an administrative agency’s decision unless one of the following conditions applies: 1. The order is not in accordance with the law. 2. The order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant. 3. The provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency. 4. The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing. 5. The findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 6. The conclusions of law and order of the agency are not supported by its findings of fact. 7. The findings of fact made by the agency do not sufficiently address the evidence presented to the agency by the appellant. 8. The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency’s rat”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rounkles v. Levi

3. “North Dakota’s implied consent laws, like Minnesota’s, “confers on drivers the privilege of soberly operating inherently dangerous motorized vehicles on the state’s roadways ... and, in exchange, each driver accepts a statutory choice.” [State v. Chasingbear, 2014 WL 3802616 , at [ (2014) ]. The choice is to consent to testing or face civil and criminal penalties equivalent or possibly less than those if convicted of driving under the influence. See Birchfield, 2015 ND 6, ¶ 17 , 858 N.W.2d 302 (noting that driver may avoid enhanced penalties for being highly intoxicated by refusing chemical testing). As noted in Birchfield , a licensed driver has a diminished expectation of privacy with respect to the enforcement of drunk-driving laws, and our implied consent laws contain safeguards to prohibit suspicionless requests by law enforcement to submit to a chemical test. Id. at ¶ 17.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Baxter