Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cole v. BOARD OF ADJ. OF CITY OF HURON

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 2000No. 21210Published

1DissentSabers, Justice

[¶ 21.] 1. THE CIRCUIT COURT APPLIED THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW IN DETERMINING THAT THE BOARD’S GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WAS ILLEGAL.

[¶ 22.] I disagree with the majority opinion’s determination that the circuit court reviewed the Board’s record de novo, “thereby substituting its discretion for that of the Board.”

[¶ 23.] As we stated in the prior appeal, “the only question presented on certiorari is whether the lower tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction.” Cole v. Bd. of Adj., City of Huron, 1999 SD 54, ¶ 10, 592 N.W.2d 175, 176 (citations omitted). Thus, the circuit court’s review is “confined…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Deardorf v. Board of Adjustment of Planning & Zoning CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1962
  2. McClure AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Greenawalt v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  4. Zimmerman v. O'MearaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
  5. Hamerly v. City of Lennox Bd. of Adj.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1998

12 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