Legal Opinion · Dissent

Heinemeyer v. Heartland Consumers Power District

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 2008No. 24717Published

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 36.] I respectfully dissent. The lead author’s conclusion that Heinemeyer gained voting residence at the home in Wentworth on November 1, 2006, is not supported by the facts of this case, or the relevant law. Moreover, the question before this Court is much larger and more complicated than whether or not the Board was entitled to refuse to seat Heinemeyer. Instead, we must ask, as did the circuit court below, at all relevant times herein did Heinemeyer maintain a voting residence and his right to vote in Madison, South Dakota, elections, such that he was duly elected by the voters of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Sherman v. CrynsIllinois Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Shaw v. ShawMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
  3. Nelson v. NelsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Treat v. MorrisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Duffy v. MortensonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993

11 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