Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Save Our Neighborhood appeal to Supreme Court

Save Our Neighborhood appeal to Supreme Court

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,318|Likes:
Published by Michael Klinski
The appeal from a group that doesn't want Walmart to be built in southern Sioux Falls.
The appeal from a group that doesn't want Walmart to be built in southern Sioux Falls.

More info:

Published by: Michael Klinski on Apr 29, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/25/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 Notice of Appeal Filed on August 21, 2013
IN
 
THE
 
SUPREME
 
COURT
OF THE
 STATE
 
OF
 
SOUTH
 
DAKOTA 
 
 APPEAL NO. 26792  __________________________________________________________________ SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD – SIOUX FALLS; BONITA SCHWAN; DAN WRAY; GALE WRAY; RICHARD V. WILKA; MITCHELL ARENDS; ERIN ARENDS; REBEKKA KLEMME; NEIL KLEMME; DANA VAN BEEK PALMER; ANNE RASMUSSEN; and DUANE O’CONNELL,
Petitioners and Appellants,
 vs. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS; and SIOUX FALLS CITY COUNCIL,
Respondents and Appellees.
 __________________________________________________________________
 A
PPEAL FROM THE
C
IRCUIT
C
OURT
 S
ECOND
 J
UDICIAL
C
IRCUIT
 M
INNEHAHA
C
OUNTY 
,
 
S
OUTH
D
 AKOTA
  T
HE
H
ONORABLE
S
 TUART
L.
 
 T
IEDE
 C
IRCUIT
 J
UDGE
 
 __________________________________________________________________ 
 
BRIEF OF APPELLANTS  __________________________________________________________________ 
 
 A 
TTORNEYS FOR
 A 
PPELLANTS
:
 
 A 
TTORNEYS FOR
 A 
PPELLEES
:
Ronald A. Parsons, Jr. Pamela R. Bollweg  J
OHNSON
,
 
H
EIDEPRIEM
&
 
 A
BDALLAH LLP
 P.O. Box 2348
101 South Main Avenue – Suite 100
 Sioux Falls SD 57101-2348  James E. Moore Blayne N. Hagen  W 
OODS
,
 
F
ULLER 
,
 
S
HULTZ
 &
 
S
MITH P
.
C
. 505 West 9th Street #101 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-5027
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. iii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………….......................1 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................ .1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ....................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ........................................................................................ 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................................. 6  ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 6 I.
 
 T
HIS
C
OURT
S
HOULD
EVERSE THE
C
IRCUIT
C
OURT
S
O
RDER 
 D
ENYING THE
 W 
RITS OF
C
ERTIORARI AND
P
ROHIBITION
……….……....…6  A. A writ of certiorari is appropriate to invalidate a municipality's annexation of land not done in compliance with the law..…..……...…6 B. A municipality must strictly comply with statutes granting annexation powers…………………………………………….............8 C. Sioux Falls City Council Resolution No. 25-13 is invalid because it was passed without prior approval of the Lincoln County Commission in violation of SDCL 9-4-5
 
………………..........8 1. Legal standard for interpreting statutes………………………..……...8 2. Read in context, the plain meaning of the text of SDCL 9-4-5 requires county approval for resolutions annexing unplatted land as determined by this Court in
 Esling v. Krambeck
………………...……...9 3. SDCL 9-4-5's requirement of county approval for resolutions annexing its unplatted land makes sense……………...………..…….14
 
 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 4. Neither legislative history nor the
Rhodes 
 decision's analyis of statutes now amended or repealed nullifies the plain meaning of the present statutory text…………………………………...…….15 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………..….…………...……...24 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ………………………….................................24  APPENDIX...………………………... …………………………..............................25

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->