Legal Opinion · Dissent

Morrill v. Wollman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1978No. 12580Published

1DissentZastrow, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion that the residency requirements of SDCL 13-49-2 are not limited to the time of selection but are in fact qualification requirements which continue during the term of each member of the Board of Regents.

I agree that Regent Morrill’s standing to challenge the constitutionality should not be prohibited under the rationale of Collins v. Siewert, 1939, 66 S.D. 477, 285 N.W. 518, *360because the constitutionality of the statute in question is of such great interest to the general public that it is within the prerogative of this Court to decide this matter. See Anderson…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Reed v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Harper v. Virginia Board of ElectionsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Behrns v. BurkeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  5. City of Aberdeen v. MeidingerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API