Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Atkinson v. City of Pierre

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 2005No. NonePublished

1ConcurrenceZinter, Justice

[¶ 33.] I concur and write to highlight two points.

[¶ 34.] First, although the dissents spend numerous pages discussing facts that could support a finding of unreasonable noise (a nuisance), Judge Gors listened to the opposing witnesses, found their credibility more persuasive, and ultimately found for Tour Ice on this issue. Therefore, although the dissents’ selection 7 of facts may appear to make a case for a nuisance, this appellate retrial of facts is not permitted under our well-established standard of review. Union County v. Hoffman, 512 N.W.2d 168, 170 (S.D.1994); Hilde v. Flood, 81…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hilde v. FloodSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Coyote Flats, L.L.C. v. Sanborn County CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. JonesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Brown County v. MeidingerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Nase v. ChristensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987

2 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