In re Declaratory Ruling re SDCL 62-1-1(6)
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gottschalk v. EIEGGSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
- Cadle Co. v. ShabaniSupreme Court of Alabama · 2008
- Maynard v. HeerenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Hyde v. M., D. & P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.