| |
Tarnavsky v. McKenzie Co. Grazing Association, 2003 ND 117 |
 | | [¶4] In 1966, the MCGA adopted a policy that "[a]ll existing preferences shown on the records of the Association as of June 9, 1966, shall be recognized subject to the rules and regulations of the Association." In the early 1990s, the MCGA addressed issues about base property and grazing preferences. |
 | | The MCGA argues Ed Tarnavsky brought this action in 1998, more than fifty years after his predecessors in interest released their grazing preferences, and more than thirty years after the grazing preferences were frozen in 1966. |
 | | The MCGA argues Ed Tarnavsky's action is either a contract claim barred by the six-year statute of limitations in N.D.C.C. § 28-01-16, or a claim subject to the ten-year statute of limitations in N.D.C.C. The MCGA also argues Ed Tarnavsky's reliance on the discovery rule and the continuing wrong concept is misplaced. |
| www.court.state.nd.us /court/opinions/20020311.htm (1522 words) |