Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Thoms v. Andersen

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 5, 1975No. File 11622Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partColer, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it would reverse the holding of the trial court disenfranchising the voters of the *574two precincts but I would further remand with directions that the ballots themselves should have been counted.

I concur with Justice Wollman wherein, as he points out, SDCL 12-21-1 is the controlling provision as to the purpose to be served by recount. I would add, however, that SDCL 12-20-35, as well as the numerous decisions of this court, including McMahon v. Crockett, 1899, 12 S.D. 11, 80 N.W. 136; Tschetter v. Ray, 1912, 28 S.D. 604, 134 N.W. 796 and Althen v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Howser v. PepperNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Tschetter v. RaySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
  3. McMahon v. CrockettSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Althen v. FowlerSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API