The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Turner County Commission upheld in zoning dispute;
- Florida Defendant found to have minimum contacts in SD
by 3-2 ruling.
Summaries
follows:
MROSE
DEVELOPMENT CO. v. TURNER COUNTY BD. OF COMMISSIONERS, 2024 S.D. 28: This is a
zoning dispute with the Turner County Commission. An application to rezone was, ultimately,
found to be inappropriate by the SD Supreme Court. The 1st and last paragraphs of the
opinion describe what transpired, as follows:
[¶1.] MRose seeks to develop
Turner County farmland located along Swan Lake into 15 lakefront lots. The land
for the proposed development is currently included in an agricultural zoning
district. Because of residential density restrictions, MRose applied to rezone
the land into a lake residential district. The Turner County Board of County
Commissioners (the County) voted to deny the application, and MRose appealed to
the circuit court, which reversed the County’s decision. The court interpreted
Turner County’s zoning ordinance to require approval of the rezoning
application as a purely ministerial act because the land was situated along
Swan Lake. The County appeals, and we reverse.
…
[¶44.] The circuit court
erred when it reversed the County’s denial of MRose’s rezoning application
based on an erroneous interpretation of the 2008 Zoning Ordinance. Because the
County exercised its non-quasi-judicial policy-making authority when it denied
MRose’s rezoning application, the court should have reviewed the County’s
decision under the arbitrariness standard and concluded that MRose failed to
meet its burden. We reverse.
This
ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter. NOTE: this case was orally argued just two
months ago, on March 19, 2024.
J&L
FARMS, INC. v. JACKMAN FLORIDA WAGYU BEEF, LLC, 2024 S.D. 29: In this case, in
which plaintiff asserts breach of contract and related claims, the trial court
asserted personal jurisdiction over co-defendant “First
Bank[,]a banking corporation organized under Florida law.” After granting “intermediate
appeal,”
the SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 3-2 decision, with the Court’s opinion
authored by Chief Justice Jensen (on re-assignment). Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion (in
which Justice Myren concurs) stating her belief that First Bank lacked minimum
contacts with South Dakota.
These
decisions may be accessed at
