Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hanig v. City of Winner

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 2005No. NonePublished

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 29.] I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court.

[¶ 30.] Pursuant to the Twenty-first Amendment of the United States Constitution, South Dakota has enacted a detailed legislative program for the regulation and control of the sale of alcoholic beverages within its boundaries. In State v. I-90 Truck Haven Service, 2003 SD 51, ¶ 8, 662 N.W.2d 288, 291, we set forth the standard for statutory construction of alcoholic beverage statutes:

Ultimately, the purpose of statutory interpretation is to fulfill the legislative dictate. Intent is ordinarily ascertained by examining the express…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Gibson v. BerryhillSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980

21 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