====== N.D. Const. art. I, § 9 — Research ======

**Rights as to civil matters.** Text of the section: [[.:start|current and prior versions]].

Every citing reference in the corpus: **62** court opinions and **2** Attorney General opinions. Counts include the section's pre-1981 designation (§ 22), era-gated by the renumbering crosswalk.

//Generated from the citation graph of the validated corpus. Treatment groupings (construing / citing / recital) are heuristic reading aids, not editorial judgments — read the opinion before relying on any signal.//

===== Cases by topic =====

//Topics are machine-generated groupings of the citing references — reading aids, not editorial judgments. Documents cited after the last classification pass appear in the lists below until the next pass.//

== Open courts and access to the courts ==

  * Rath v. Rath, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/51841|2022 ND 105]] (2022, Jensen, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 34: “…%%Rath argues N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, §§ 9 and 21. He further raises arguments, inter alia, claiming violation of equal protection, the animus doctrine, overbreadth doctrine, and freedom of association. He contends the rule improperly treats a self-represented p%%…”//
  * Smith v. Erickson, [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/134549|2019 ND 48]] (2019, Crothers, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 12: “…%%The North Dakota Constitution art. I, § 9 guarantees access to state courts: "All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administere%%…”//
  * Federal Land Bank of Saint Paul v. Ziebarth, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1704286/federal-land-bank-of-saint-paul-v-ziebarth/|1994 ND 153]] (1994, Meschke, J.)
  * True v. Heitkamp, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1591741/true-v-heitkamp/|1991 ND 98]] (1991, Gierke, J.)
  * Williams v. State, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1692223/williams-v-state/|1987 ND 71]] (1987, Gierke, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%access to the courts is a valued asset of our democratic form of government. Counsel and their clients should be permitted to present issues that could arguably be correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win on appeal. See N.D. Const. Art. I, § 9;13 also State v. Haugen, 392 N.W.2d 799, 805 n. 4 (N.D.1986). As Justice Stevens recently observed: 13 Article I, Section 9 of the North Dakota Constitution provides: “Section 9. All courts shall be open, and every ma%%…”//
  * Dakota Bank & Trust Co. of Fargo v. Brakke, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1274986/dakota-bank-trust-co-of-fargo-v-brakke/|1985 ND 208]] (1985, Gierke, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%the Bill of Rights under the North Dakota Constitution5 because the lower court’s January 31 order deprived him of his defenses to Dakota Bank’s action against him. The lower court’s January 31 order provided, in part, as follows: 5 Brakke cites Article I, Section 9 of the North Dakota Constitution which provides, as follows: “Section 9. All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law,%%…”//
  * KFGO Radio, Inc. v. Rothe, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2064208/kfgo-radio-inc-v-rothe/|1980 ND 140]] (1980, Paulson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%, the state’s attorney’s inquiry was open to the public. [*509] The Attorney General’s opinion served as the basis for the district court’s memorandum opinion. However, the district court asserted several other grounds for granting the permanent injunction. Section 22 of the Constitution of North Dakota provides that “All courts shall be open ....” The district court reasoned that the above language, coupled with s 27-01-02, N.D.C.C., served as secondary authority for the district co%%…”//
  * State ex rel. Lashkowitz v. Cass County, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1597785/state-ex-rel-lashkowitz-v-cass-county/|1968 ND 20]] (1968, Strutz, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ch petitions since they have a favored position under the present law. So the statute actually requires an aggrieved person to obtain the signatures of a greater percentage of the electors of the remaining districts in order to secure redress of his rights. Section 22 of the North Dakota Constitution provides that ‘All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law.’ Section 11—07—02 would%%…”//
  * State ex rel. Shaw v. Frazier, Governor, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6850377/state-ex-rel-shaw-v-frazier/|1918 ND 13]] (1918, Bruce, J.)

== Sovereign immunity and suits against the state ==

  * State v. New Holland, [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/53809|2015 ND 223]] (2015, Sandstrom, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 15: “…%%Article I, Section 9, of the North Dakota Constitution provides, "Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct." In *Bulman v. Hulstrand Constr. C%%…”//
  * Kouba v. State of North Dakota, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/46633|2004 ND 186]] (2004, Maring, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 11: “…%%asserts the State violated his rights by not providing [*471] him with a "Notice of Suspension" of his driver's license. The State denies that notice of the suspension was not provided, but whether it was or not is not dispositive of the issue. Article I, Section 9, of the North Dakota Constitution provides in part that "... [s]uits may be brought against the state in such a manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct." Our Court has%%…”//
  * Bulman v. Hulstrand Construction Co., Inc., [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1969633/bulman-v-hulstrand-construction-co-inc/|1994 ND 187]] (1994, Levine, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ef filed. Opinion LEVINE, Justice. Judy Ann Bulman appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her wrongful death action against Hulstrand Construction Company and the State of North Dakota. We affirm the dismissal of Hulstrand. However, we hold that Art. I, § 9, N.D. Const., does not bestow exclusive authority upon the Legislature to waive or modify sovereign immunity of the State from tort liability and does not preclude this Court from abolishing that common-law doctrine. Wi%%…”//
  * N.D. Att'y Gen.: [[https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/091691-Vogel_0.pdf|N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. (Sept. 16, 1991)]]
  * Leadbetter v. Rose, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1598954/leadbetter-v-rose/|1991 ND 51]] (1991, Erickstad, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%no longer exist and that no sufficient reason exists to retain it. Relying on Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974), she asserts that because sovereign immunity is a product of judicial origin, this court may abrogate or modify it. Art. I, § 9, N.D. Const., provides: “All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale%%…”//
  * Dickinson Public School District v. Sanstead, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1827660/dickinson-public-school-district-v-sanstead/|1988 ND 137]] (1988, Erickstad, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%b Service North Dakota, 379 N.W.2d 285, 287 (N.D.1985). The subsequently entered judgment in this case is consistent with the order, and we therefore treat the appeal as being from the judgment. [2] The State alleges that this action is barred by Article I, Section 9, of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides that “[s]uits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.”3 Although the constit%%…”//
  * Kristensen v. Strinden, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1998233/kristensen-v-strinden/|1983 ND 215]] (1983, VandeWalle, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%t 31, 442 S.W.2d at 250–251, stated that “no policy of this State can [*71] be found in its history, judicial or otherwise, that would require the judicial branch of the government of Tennessee to entertain such action.” Our law is to the contrary. Article I, Section 9, of the North Dakota Constitution provides in part that “[a]ll courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and%%…”//
  * Nelson Paving Co., Inc. v. Hjelle, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1228845/nelson-paving-co-inc-v-hjelle/|1973 ND 15]] (1973, Erickstad, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%’ and that this is reviewable under subsection 4 of Section 32—29—08, N.D.C.C. He asserts that the powers of the arbitration board are not so final that judicial approval should be given to an award based upon findings and conclusions that are in violation of Section 22 of the North Dakota State Constitution and Section 32—12—02, N.D.C.C. Those sections read: ‘All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by%%…”//
  * Wright ex rel. Wright v. State, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1661383/wright-ex-rel-wright-v-state/|1971 ND 70]] (1971, Burdick, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%dismissal directed by the trial court. The plaintiff contends that the governmental immunity of the State was waived by the State through the purchase of a policy of liability insurance authorized by Section 39—01—08, N.D.C.C., as amended, enacted pursuant to Section 22 of the Constitution of North Dakota. Section 39—01—08, N.D.C.C., as amended, reads as follows: ‘39—01—08. State and political subdivisions authorized to carry insurance on vehicles—Waiver of immunity to extent only of i%%…”//
  * Ralston Purina Company v. Hagemeister, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2118122/ralston-purina-company-v-hagemeister/|1971 ND 15]] (1971, Strutz, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%rmitted to be heard in the trial of the action. The next issue raised by the defendants on appeal is that—assuming that the State of North Dakota is the real party in interest—the action must be dismissed because the State has not consented to the suit. [2] Section 22 of the North Dakota Constitution provides that suits may be brought against the State in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases as the Legislative Assembly may, by law, direct. However, since we hold that the St%%…”//
  * Stark County v. State, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2128669/stark-county-v-state/|1968 ND 22]] (1968, Strutz, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%34. [2] Consent to be sued may be expressed in the State’s Constitution, but such provisions generally are held not to be self-executing and no suit may be maintained until the Legislature provides therefor. 81 C.J.S. States s 215—a, p. 1304. We find that Section 22 of the North Dakota Constitution provides that suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts and in such cases as the Legislative Assembly may, by law, direct. [3] Section 32—12—02, North Dako%%…”//
  * Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Morton County, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2138434/northern-pacific-railway-co-v-morton-county/|1964 ND 62]] (1964, Teigen, J.)
  * Spielman v. State, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1949897/spielman-v-state/|1958 ND 29]] (1958, Morris, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%any insurance carrier furnishing such insurance shall not be permitted to raise a defense of governmental immunity from liability for any damage or loss occasioned by any such vehicle or the operator thereof, which waiver shall be contained in the policy;' Section 22 of the North Dakota Constitution provides that: 'Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, [*630] and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.' The power to waive%%…”//
  * Johnson v. Brunner, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933545/johnson-v-brunner/|1942 ND 3]] (1942, Burke, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ecifically upon section 26 of article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, Smith-Hurd Stats., which declares, "the state of Illinois shall never be made defendant in any court of law or equity." But the case cited is not in point. Our Constitution, section 22, provides, "Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct"; and the legislative assembly has, by the provisions of section 8175%%…”//
  * Dunham Lumber Co. v. Gresz, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3935069/dunham-lumber-co-v-gresz/|1940 ND 66]] (1940, Burke, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%to be given by the plaintiff at $1,000. The primary point relied upon by the state is that it, being a sovereign state, cannot be sued in its own courts without its permission, and that no permission to sue the state in an action such as this has been given. Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota provides, with reference to suits against the state, that: "Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative a%%…”//
  * Jacobson v. State of North Dakota, Department of State Highways, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933114/jacobson-v-state-department-of-state-highways/|1938 ND 18]] (1938, Burke, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%Highways" demurs to the complaint, claiming: "That the Court has no jurisdiction of the person of this defendant for the reason that the laws of the State of North Dakota provide for no such action as set forth in plaintiff's complaint against the State, and Section 22 of the State Constitution, among other things, provides: 'Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly, may, by law, direct.' That said complaint%%…”//
  * Schilling v. Carl Township, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3934106/schilling-v-carl-township/|1931 ND 12]] (1931, Burr, J.)
  * Ford Motor Co. v. State, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3934294/ford-motor-co-v-state/|1930 ND 82]] (1930, Christianson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ven such consent then no suit lies. 25 R. C. L. p. 412. In the Constitution of this state it is provided: "Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct." N. D. Const. § 22. In conformity with this constitutional direction, the legislative assembly enacted the following statute: "An action respecting the title to property, or arising upon contract may be brought in the district court aga%%…”//
  * State ex rel. Shafer, Atty. Gen., v. Lowe, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933570/state-ex-rel-shafer-v-lowe/|1926 ND 137]] (1926, Pugh, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on that court by the federal Constitution. The consent of the state to be sued is expressed in the Constitution and statutes as follows: Constitution of North Dakota, § 22: "Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the Legislative Assembly may, by law, direct." Section 8175, Compiled Laws of 1913: "An action respecting the title to pro%%…”//
  * Wirtz v. Nestos, Governor (Watson, Intervener), [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3935027/wirtz-v-nestos/|1924 ND 115]] (1924, Johnson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%xecution of the same governmental design. Having held that the commission is not subject to suit without the consent of the state, we must next ascertain if there is authority to maintain this action in the constitution or the general statutes on the subject. Section 22 of the Constitution of North Dakota provides that: "All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justic%%…”//

== Remedy clause and legislative limits on remedies ==

  * Larimore Public School District No. 44, et al. v. Aamodt, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/80120|2018 ND 71]] (2018, McEvers, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 11: “…%%d at 799-801 , our analysis thereafter recognized the doctrine of governmental immunity in North Dakota had judicial origins, had been judicially modified on some occasions, and was not constitutionally mandated under language now found in N.D. Const. art. I, § 9. Our decision overruled prior decisions supporting the doctrine of governmental immunity and judicially abrogated that doctrine, but recognized the legislature could modify or shape governmental liability within its con%%…”//
  * Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/49085|2004 ND 153]] (2004, Maring, J.)
  * Riemers v. O'Halloran, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/107106|2004 ND 79]] (2004, Neumann, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //¶ 5: “…%%Riemers has asserted a number of constitutional claims. Relying on N.D. Const. art. I, § 1, Riemers contends he "has the 'inalienable right' of 'acquiring, possessing and protecting property.' " Riemers also relies on part of N.D. Const. art. I, § 9 ("All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy"), and N.D. Const. art. I, § 21 ("No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted w%%…”//
  * Eagle v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/53989|1998 ND 154]] (1998, Neumann, J.)
  * Hanson v. Williams County, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1878598/hanson-v-williams-county/|1986 ND 104]] (1986, Gierke, J.)  ·  construes, quotes the provision
    * //“…%%A.2d 195; Saylor, supra 497 S.W.2d 218.6 Contrarily, a number of courts have held statutes of repose to be constitutional under these same constitutional provisions.7 5 Recently in Andrews v. O’Hearn, M.D., 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986) we discussed Article I, § 9. The Andrewses relied upon this provision and construed it to be a guarantee of a remedy through our state judicial system. We noted that the open courts provision has never been interpreted by this court to be an absol%%…”//
  * Arneson v. Olson, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1905888/arneson-v-olson/|1978 ND 96]] (1978, Vogel, J.)
  * Sayler v. Holstrom, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1309924/sayler-v-holstrom/|1976 ND 8]] (1976, Erickstad, J.)
  * Johnson v. Hassett, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1837726/johnson-v-hassett/|1974 ND 32]] (1974, Vogel, J.)
  * Kelly v. Guy, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2161477/kelly-v-guy/|1965 ND 15]] (1965, Burdick, J.)
  * Ethen v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933068/ethen-v-north-dakota-workmens-compensation-bureau/|1932 ND 71]] (1932, Nuessle, J.)
  * County of Divide v. Baird, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3935089/county-of-divide-v-baird/|1926 ND 147]] (1926, Johnson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%re powerless to speak or prevent it; now an officer of the court is charged with the duty of protecting their interests. Shall we say to him that there is no remedy whereby the innocent may be protected from the consequences of the unlawful conduct of others? Section 22 of our Constitution provides that: "The courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him * * * shall have remedy by due process of law. * * *" And yet it is said that the court, after finding the injury, ca%%…”//
  * Crandall v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933077/crandall-v-north-dakota-workmens-comp-bureau/|1925 ND 96]] (1925, Christianson, J.)
  * Meyerle v. Pioneer Publishing Co., [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6850903/meyerle-v-pioneer-publishing-co/|1920 ND 88]] (1920, Birdzell, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%operty, business, trade, profession, or occupation is erroneous. Section 9, N. D. Const., so far as applicable, provides: "Every man may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." Again, section 22, N. D. Const., so far as applicable, provides: "All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice ad%%…”//

== Due process and fair adjudication ==

  * Sollin, et al. v. Wangler, et al., [[https://www.ndcourts.gov/supreme-court/opinions/151183|2001 ND 96]] (2001, VandeWalle, J.)
  * Reems ex rel. Reems v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Health Center, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2176323/reems-ex-rel-reems-v-st-josephs-hospital-health-center/|1995 ND 142]] (1995, VandeWalle, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%her to disclose or to disqualify compounds the problem of perceived partiality, even if he was not actually biased. Litigants have a right to trial of their cases before a fair and impartial judge. 46 AmJur2d Judges § 86 (1994). See also N.D. Const. art. I, § 9 (“every man for any injury done him ... shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay”). A judicial remedy to assure the fairness of trial proceedings is not%%…”//
  * North Dakota Commission on Medical Competency v. Racek, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1303735/north-dakota-commission-on-medical-competency-v-racek/|1995 ND 13]] (1995, Meschke, J.)  ·  construes, quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ess protections should attach for any constitutional right at the investigatory, pre-complaint stage of the proceedings. Under N.D. Const. Art. I, § 1, those protections extend to life, liberty, property, reputation, safety, and happiness. N.D. Const. Art. I, § 9 protects “lands, goods, person [and] reputation.” If carried to its logical extreme, Dr. Doe’s interpretation would require a full due process hearing before the state infringed upon a person’s “happiness.” More compell%%…”//
  * Mund v. Rambough, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1594551/mund-v-rambough/|1988 ND 208]] (1988, Erickstad, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%onal as a violation of equal protection of the laws under Article I, Sections 21 and [*55] 22 of the North Dakota Constitution4 and Amendment Fourteen, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and also as a violation of due process of law under Article I, Section 9 of the North Dakota Constitution5 and Amendment Fourteen, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. 4 The North Dakota Constitutional provision guaranteeing equal protection of the laws is Article I, Section 21, wh%%…”//
  * Andrews v. O'HEARN, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1980089/andrews-v-ohearn/|1986 ND 80]] (1986, VandeWalle, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ation of juror affidavits to impeach a verdict would be a great detriment to the jury system: 2 Unfortunately, defendants did not respond to plaintiffs’ due-process arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the North Dakota Constitution. “It would greatly tend to unsettle verdicts if a juror be permitted to say, after it is too late to be remedied, that he did not understand the charge of the court. To do so would res%%…”//
  * Tuttle v. Tuttle, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6851073/tuttle-v-tuttle/|1921 ND 21]] (1921, Christianson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%ce, but corruption of the trial court by bribery; and, where that is shown to exist, it just as effectively terminates the power of the court to proceed in the matter before him as in the case of the filing of an affidavit of prejudice, and this, by reason of section 22 of our Constitution, which, so far as material here, is as follows: [*904] "All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of l%%…”//

== Court access for tribal members and reservation claims ==

  * Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P.C., [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2233742/three-affiliated-tribes-of-the-fort-berthold-reservation-v-wold/|1985 ND 40]] (1985, Erickstad, J.)  ·  construes, quotes the provision
    * //“…%%now consider whether or not, as so construed, it violates either the State or the United States Constitution. We are convinced that it does not. Affiliated argued, prior to the construction which we have now given Chapter 27–19, that it violated Article I, Section 9, of our State Constitution which requires that all courts be open to everyone;9 Article I, Section 22, of our State Constitution which requires all laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation;10 and Article IV,%%…”//
  * Three Affiliated Tribes, etc. v. Wold Eng., PC, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1585936/three-affiliated-tribes-etc-v-wold-eng-pc/|1982 ND 105]] (1982, Erickstad, J.)
  * Nelson v. Dubois, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2012370/nelson-v-dubois/|1975 ND 51]] (1975, Paulson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%x. These are clear cases of infringement and interference and no residual jurisdiction is available. VOGEL, Judge (dissenting). This is a case where there is a wrong without a remedy unless we find one. We are told by our Constitution to find one if we can. Section 22, Constitution of North Dakota, provides, in part: ‘All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice%%…”//
  * Gourneau v. Smith, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1229204/gourneau-v-smith/|1973 ND 18]] (1973, Strutz, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%arising out of an automobile accident in which the facts were almost identical to those in the case at bar. In that case, the court held that Indians are citizens of the United States and residents of the State, and that courts of the State, under Article I, Section 22, of the North Dakota Constitution, are open to them for prosecution of civil actions where such actions do not involve title to lands. [*258] [2] We conclude that Vermillion no longer states the rule to be applied in%%…”//
  * Vermillion v. Spotted Elk, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1898447/vermillion-v-spotted-elk/|1957 ND 59]] (1957, Sathre, J.)  ·  quotes the provision
    * //“…%%said states, without intervention by the United States. The case at bar grew out of tort, committed on an Indian reservation and was brought by an Indian against Indians. They are citizens of the United States and residents of the State of North Dakota. Under Section 22 of the Constitution the courts of the State are open to them. The compact between the United States and the State of North Dakota created by the Enabling Act and the disclaimer in Section 203 of the Constitution, have r%%…”//

== Tax sales, takings, and property rights ==

  * Minot Sand & Gravel Co. v. Hjelle, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1701828/minot-sand-gravel-co-v-hjelle/|1975 ND 48]] (1975, Sand, J.)
  * N.D. Att'y Gen.: [[https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/48-232.pdf|N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 48-232 (1948)]]
  * Trustee Loan Co. v. Botz, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6850200/trustee-loan-co-v-botz/|1917 ND 109]] (1917, Grace, J.)

== Other applications ==

  * Square Butte Electric Cooperative v. Dohn, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1696668/square-butte-electric-cooperative-v-dohn/|1974 ND 64]] (1974, Erickstad, J.)
  * Soo Line Railroad Company v. City of Wilton, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2180865/soo-line-railroad-company-v-city-of-wilton/|1969 ND 53]] (1969, Paulson, J.)
  * Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union of America v. WDAY, Inc., [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1586890/farmers-educational-cooperative-union-of-america-v-wday-inc/|1958 ND 19]] (1958, Sathre, J.)
  * Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Grand Forks, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2191031/northern-pacific-railway-co-v-city-of-grand-forks/|1955 ND 53]] (1955, Burke, J.)
  * City of Fargo v. Sathre, Atty. Gen. of North Dakota, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3934170/city-of-fargo-v-sathre/|1949 ND 4]] (1949, Nuessle, J.)
  * Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3934930/asbury-hospital-v-cass-county/|1944 ND 37]] (1944, Burke, J.)
  * Brye v. Greenfield, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3933416/brye-v-greenfield/|1941 ND 15]] (1941, per curiam)  ·  quotes the provision
  * State ex rel. Dushek v. Watland, [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3935227/state-ex-rel-dushek-v-watland/|1924 ND 130]] (1924, Christianson, J.)  ·  quotes the provision

----
//The sidebar keeps a curated digest; this page is the complete record.//