Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aune v. B-Y Water District

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1993No. 18102Published

1DissentMiller, Chief Justice

The majority and the parties fail to resolve the most fundamental issue presented in this appeal: What is a “judgment?” The followup question then, is whether Aune has such a judgment against B-Y. The majority’s discussions and arguments are premised on the erroneous “fact” that Aune had a valid judgment against B-Y upon which Tabor Plumbing could levy. Such a premise is not legally sound. Under our statutory scheme, as set forth below, it is clear that Aune did not have a judgment against B-Y upon which Tabor Plumbing could levy and which could be sold at a sheriffs sale. Therefore, I…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Aune v. B-Y Water DistrictSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Wentzel v. HuebnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Pendergast v. MunsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Pendergast v. MunsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API