Meet In CommonNews

Local

North Dakota landowners argue property rights dispute before US Supreme Court

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: North Dakota Monitor

A group of northwest North Dakota landowners urged U.S. Supreme Court justices Monday to find that they should be reimbursed for legal costs they paid in a land dispute with a pipeline company. Natural gas pipeline developer WBI Energy used federal eminent domain to take portions of the McKenzie County landowners’ properties in 2018. The owners were reimbursed for the value of their land under a confidential settlement signed in 2021, according to court records. But that didn’t include the attorney fees the property owners incurred to reach that agreement. The property owners — which include Leonard and Denae Hoffmann, Randall Stevenson and Rocky Prestangen — argue that WBI is required to compensate them for those costs under North Dakota law. WBI says that because it used a federal power to take the land, state law doesn’t apply. After an appeals court sided with WBI in the suit last year, the property owners petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at North Dakota Monitor

Featured places to meet in Palo Alto, CA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

Yutori

Yutori 3375 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA, 94306 US

Cafe Riace

Cafe Riace 200 Sheridan Avenue Palo Alto, CA, US

City guide for Palo Alto, CA

Related coverage

Community Poll

Individuals should control whether organizations share their personal information.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Scientists can edit mosquitoes until a deadly disease disappears. Who gets to say yes?

Scientists can potentially release modified mosquitoes whose genes would spread through wild populations and sharply reduce a deadly disease. The ecological effects could cross borders and may be impossible to reverse.

Who may authorize an irreversible change intended to save lives?

Explore this quandary