Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Klager

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 30, 2011No. 25609Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 38.] I respectfully dissent. I would conclude that taxidermy is not a pervasive*62ly regulated business in South Dakota. The actual regulation of taxidermy consists of a single statute with minimal administrative regulations, no specific direction to game officials on when and how to implement inspections, a minimal number of actual inspections, and no organized records of when inspections were conducted or their results. The majority opinion’s holding establishes a dangerous basis to conclude pervasive regulation exists every time the Legislature passes a single statute concerning regulation…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. New York v. BurgerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. United States v. BiswellSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970

7 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