Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sorenson v. Rickman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1992No. 17488Published

1DissentWuest, Justice

I dissent because the majority opinion overrules longstanding settled law of this state. First, whether plaintiff had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law is a legal question rather than a factual question, and as such, is fully reviewable by this court. Permann v. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113, 117 (S.D.1987). Second, a contest provided by SDCL 12-22-1 does not provide a remedy for an elector or taxpayer to prohibit the illegal expenditure of public funds on a void election (The trial court found the petitions for referendum are defective…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Permann v. South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance DivisionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Larson v. LockenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  3. State ex rel. Pryor v. AxnessSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Noel v. CunninghamSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API