Hanig v. City of Winner
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Gibson v. BerryhillSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- 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.