Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Kirschenman v. Hutchinson County Board of Commissioners

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 2003No. NonePublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SABERS, Justice.

FACTS-

[¶ 1.] The Hutchinson County Board of Commissioners (Board) granted David Meyer a conditional use permit following a public hearing on April 16, and the Board’s vote on May 2, 2002. The use permit allowed Meyer to construct and operate a 3,200-head hog confinement facility within Hutchinson County. A group of Hutchinson County citizens (Kirschenman) filed petitions with the Hutchinson County Auditor calling for a referendum vote on the issue. The Board voted to reject the petitions and the County Auditor concurred in the decision. The basis for rejecting the petitions…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Baker v. AtkinsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  2. D'Ercole v. MAYOR & COUNCIL, ETC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
  3. Voeltz v. John Morrell & Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Vitek v. Bon Homme County Board of CommissionersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Wang v. PattersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Redelsperger v. City of AvondaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  2. Hanson v. Minnehaha County CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Bechen v. MOODY COUNTY BD. OF COM'RS.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Bechen v. Moody County Board of CommissionersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Hanks v. Corson County Board of CommissionersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API