The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Reversal of decision upon remand where trial court’s
new decision rests on previously unraised issue of standing
- Conviction for having a potentially dangerous animal
reversed;
Summaries
follows:
DUNHAM
v. LAKE COUNTY COMMISSION, 2022 S.D. 30:
This is the 2nd appellate decision in this litigation. The opening paragraph of the opinion
explains:
[¶1.] Karen Dunham petitioned
the circuit court for a writ of certiorari challenging the Lake County Board of
Adjustment’s (Board) decision to grant a variance to Hodne Homes, LLC (Hodne
Homes) to build a facility to store and display boats. On remand from this
Court, the circuit court addressed a newly-raised issue about Dunham’s standing
and dismissed Dunham’s petition. Dunham appeals.
The
SD Supreme court reversed and remanded, stating:
[¶17.] When we remanded, we
necessarily determined that Dunham would continue to have standing to seek
relief from the circuit court if the Board once again granted the requested
variance. We reverse the circuit court’s dismissal and remand for the circuit
court to address the merits of Dunham’s petition.
The
Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren.
All five justices agree in the result.
Justice Salter supplied an additional brief one-paragraph concurrence.
STATE
v. ALEXANDER, 2022 S.D. 31: Defendant was “convicted of violating
SDCL 40-1-23 for having a ‘potentially dangerous animal.’” (pit bulls). The SD Supreme Court reversed because there
was a failure of due process in the making the determination that the dogs were
in fact “dangerous” as defined in SDCL 40-1-1(5). All five justices agree with the
result. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Kern. Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion, as
to which Chief Justice Jensen agrees.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
