Aasmundstad v. State

Summary

Approximately 100 landowners appealed dismissal of inverse condemnation claims alleging that government drainage projects caused flooding of property near Devils Lake, North Dakota. The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the landowners failed to present reliable evidence establishing that the drainage projects proximately caused their damages and upheld the finding that an unprecedented wet cycle was the sole proximate cause. The court affirmed the judgment and did not decide whether some claims were barred by the statute of limitations because the landowners failed to show prejudice.

Holdings

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the drainage projects were not the proximate cause of the landowners' damages because the landowners failed to present reliable evidence establishing the causal connection between the projects and the additional water entering Devils Lake.
2. The district court did not clearly err in finding that an extraordinary and unprecedented wet cycle was an act of God and the sole proximate cause of the landowners' flooding damages.
3. The court did not decide whether the district court erred in dismissing some inverse condemnation claims under the statutes of limitations because the affected landowners failed to demonstrate prejudice.
4. Temporary interruption of James Wang's vehicular access did not constitute a compensable taking because reasonable access by boat remained available for the short period at issue.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to amend the complaint to add damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the government drainage projects were not the proximate cause of the landowners' flooding damages.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that an unprecedented wet cycle constituted an act of God and was the sole proximate cause of the damages.
3. Whether the court erred in dismissing some inverse condemnation claims as barred by statutes of limitations.
4. Whether the court erred in dismissing James Wang's access claim.
5. Whether the court erred in denying claims allegedly arising from the Creel Bay Dike.
6. Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a motion to amend the complaint to add damages.

Disposition

affirmed