Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rininger v. Bennett County School District

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1991No. 17189, 17202Published

1DissentMiller, Chief Justice

I dissent. The Department, in direct contravention of settled law, placed the burden of proof on the nonmoving party, the District.

Rininger commenced this unfair labor practice action against District. It was, therefore, his burden to prove that District violated, misinterpreted, or inequitably applied District’s written policies in failing to reemploy him. The issue centered around conflicting testimony of Rininger and District’s superintendent, Mr. Gannon. The hearing officer found “no inconsistency that would make Rininger more credible than Gannon, or vice versa.” Rather than finding that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. South Dakota Board of Regents v. HeegeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Gourley v. Board of Trustees of S. DakotaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Peterson v. HoftiezerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API