Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Behm

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court held that Montana-Dakota Utilities’ proposed pipeline easement across Behm’s property was for an authorized public use and that the district court applied the wrong standard in determining necessity. The court reversed the judgment dismissing the eminent domain action and remanded for trial on damages.

Holdings

1. When eminent domain is exercised by a public utility, condemnation for a pipeline serving a single industrial customer does not preclude a finding that the taking is for a public use.
2. Judicial review of necessity is limited to whether the particular property sought is reasonably suitable and usable for the authorized public use; a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the condemning authority absent bad faith, gross abuse of discretion, or fraud.
3. The necessity inquiry concerns whether the particular property proposed to be taken is necessary for the authorized public use, not whether the public use itself is indispensable or whether the utility's customer has no alternative method of obtaining service.
4. The court would not address the ten issues listed in Behm's cross-appeal because he did not specifically address them in his brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether condemnation of an easement by a public utility for a pipeline serving a single industrial customer may qualify as a taking for a public use.
2. Whether the proposed taking was necessary under North Dakota law when alternative routes existed and the customer could continue using propane.
3. Whether the district court improperly substituted its judgment for MDU's determination that the particular property was reasonably suitable for the authorized public use.
4. Whether the Supreme Court should address Behm's inadequately briefed cross-appeal issues.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded