Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re Declaratory Ruling re SDCL 62-1-1(6)

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 9, 2016No. 27463Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 23.] I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the Department had jurisdiction to hear Leach’s petition. However, I disagree that Leach had a right to appeal the Department’s ruling. Therefore, I concur in result in the Court’s decision to reverse the circuit court’s vacation of the Department’s ruling. However, remanding to the *351circuit court for a determination on- the merits is not authorized in this case because the circuit court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Leach’s appeal. . Even if the appeal was statutorily authorized, it is improper because Leach lacks judicial standing.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Gottschalk v. EIEGGSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Cadle Co. v. ShabaniSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
  4. Maynard v. HeerenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Hyde v. M., D. & P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1912

10 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