The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding, inter alia:
- City of Sturgis rebuffed;
- New decision on Tax Deed dispute;
- “Use tax” dispute resolved;
- Health Plan must allow other providers to participate;
- Sellers prevail in dispute with Realtor.
Summaries
follows:
BOHN
v. BUENO, 2024 S.D. 6: This dispute involves the City of Sturgis and an effort
to remove the position of City Manager from City Government. Upon receipt of a petition with 900
signatures, Sturgis City officials refused to certify an election. The trial court refused to issue a mandamus requiring the election. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
Because a petition to remove the
city manager position was presented to the city council, and the petition
requested an election on the proposition of employing a city manager, the city
council had a clear duty to schedule an election. We remand to the circuit
court to enter a writ of mandamus directing the city council to schedule and
hold an election consistent with SDCL 9-10-1 as presented in the petition.
This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. Justice
DeVaney filed a separate concurring opinion.
Petitioning Citizens were denied appellate attorney fees (because not
authorized by statute or other authority), but were awarded costs.
BIALOTA
v. LAKOTA LAKES, LLC, 2024 S.D. 7:
(NOTE: the Court handed down a written decision in this dispute on
10/25/23, but subsequently withdrew the opinion, granted a rehearing, and
rendered this decision today.) Trial
court set aside a tax deed issued by Pennington County, at the request of the
title owner of the real estate, accepting the title owner’s argument that proper
notice had not been delivered. The SD
Supreme Court reversed and remanded, upholding the tax deed. The Court’s ruling is 3-2, with majority
opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen upon reassignment. Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion, in
which Justice DeVaney joined.
ELLINGSON
DRAINAGE v. DEP’T OF REVENUE, 2024 S.D. 8:
This is a contest regarding South Dakota’s use tax. The dispute, its history and result on appeal
are described in the opening paragraph of the opinion, as follows:
[¶1.] The South Dakota
Department of Revenue (DOR) imposed a use tax on Ellingson Drainage, Inc.
(Ellingson), after an audit revealed it had not paid use tax on equipment used
in 30 South Dakota projects but purchased elsewhere. Ellingson filed an
administrative appeal challenging the constitutionality of the tax, but the
appeal was dismissed because the claim was deemed not cognizable in an
administrative forum. Ellingson then appealed to the circuit court, which
affirmed the imposition of the tax, holding it did not violate the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Interstate Commerce Clause, as
applied to Ellingson. Ellingson appeals, and we affirm.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
ORTHOPEDIC
INSTITUTE, ET AL v. SANFORD HEALTH PLAN, INC., 2024 S.D. 9: This is an action
by humerous health care providers, seeking a declaratory judgment that they
should be permitted to participate as “any willing provider” (pursuant to SDCL
58-17J-2) under Sanford Health Plan. The
trial court ruled for the providers. The
SD Supreme Court affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion
authored by Chief Justice Jensen, stating:
[¶1.] The [trial] court determined that SDCL
58-17J-2 does not permit SHP to exclude a fully qualified and willing health
care provider from participating as a panel provider in every health benefit
plan offered by SHP. We affirm.
Circuit
Judge Lovrien participated in this decision, in lieu of Justice Salter.
UHRE
REALTY v. TRONNES, 2024 S.D. 10: This is a dispute between the Sellers and
Realtor and the Realtor’s related Property Management Company. The trial court ruled for Sellers (except on
their claim for tortious interference) and awarded attorney fees to the
Sellers. The SD Supreme Court affirmed
the victory for Sellers but reversed the attorney fee award. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
