Legal Opinion · Dissent

Okerson v. Common Council of Hot Springs

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 2009No. 24978Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 19.] I dissent.

[¶ 20.] The circuit court’s letter to the parties, dated July 11, 2008, states that “[t]he prime issue presented is: Whether the City’s February 19, 2008, decision to settle the golf course lawsuit is a legislative act or an administrative act?” (Emphasis added.) The circuit court concluded that the 2008 Settlement Agreement was an administrative act. As a consequence of this conclusion, the circuit court held that the 2008 Settlement Agreement was not subject to referendum, and refused to enter a writ of mandamus. As a part of their argument that a writ of mandamus should…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Dirks v. Sioux Valley Empire Electric Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. VentoSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Baker v. JacksonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Credit Collection Services, Inc. v. PesickaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Black Hills Central Railroad v. City of Hill CitySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003

5 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