Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In re the Appeal of Lawrence County

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1993No. Nos. 17802, 17820 and 17822Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHenderson, Justice

I agree with the legal discourse on Issue 1 for the reason set forth therein, namely that Williams is not an aggrieved party under SDCL 10-11-42. Therefore, as the majority points out, the State Board did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear Williams’ appeal. Inasmuch as the circuit court denied the Northern Hills Farmers and Ranchers Association’s motion to dismiss based on a lack of jurisdiction of the State Board of Equalization, the circuit court must be reversed. Therefore, there being no jurisdiction, the circuit court must direct the State Board to reinstate the County Board’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. RisjordSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Fullmer v. State Farm Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  3. In re the Dependency & Neglect of N.A.H.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Caplan v. BrandrietSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API