Legal Opinion · Dissent

Swanson v. State, Department of Commerce & Regulation

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1987No. 15657Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

As I often see in this Court, critical facts have been omitted in the majority opinion which require me to write specially. Legal authorities not furnished by the briefs, nor discussed by the majority opinion, must attend the omitted facts. Weighing these authorities creates a different result and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Appellant is a bachelor rancher, living in a remote area, to whom transportation for food, medication, parts and ranch supplies is a vital necessity. To lose a work permit, in addition to his driver’s license, is a very severe penalty. By themselves, these facts…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United States v. Pedro M. Gonzalez-Sanchez, United States of America v. Carlos Latorre, United States of America v. Manuel Parrilla-MarquezCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1987
  3. Bayer v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. LohnesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. JonesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987

6 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