BISON TP. v. Perkins County, No. 22036
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | SABERS, Justice. |
| Citation | 2002 SD 22,640 N.W.2d 503 |
| Parties | BISON TOWNSHIP, Lincoln Township, Lone Tree Township, Scotch Cap Township, Rainbow Township, Wilson Township, Vickers Township, and Strool Township, Petitioners and Appellants, v. PERKINS COUNTY, South Dakota, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 13 February 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 22036, No. 22038., No. 22037 |
640 N.W.2d 503
2002 SD 22
v.
PERKINS COUNTY, South Dakota, Appellees
Nos. 22036, 22037, 22038.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Argued January 8, 2002.
Decided February 13, 2002.
Rehearing Denied March 22, 2002.
Elton R. Anson, Perkins County State's Attorney, Lemmon, Attorney for appellees.
FACTS
SABERS, Justice.
[¶ 1.] In 1993 Perkins County (County) created different zones of property assessment within the county. This newly created system produced disparate results for the 1998 property assessment year. Twelve Townships (Township) sought review of the 1998 real estate assessments from the Office of Hearing Examiners (OHE) challenging both the accuracy and methods employed in the assessments. OHE reversed the assessments and County appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court which reversed OHE's decision. Township appealed to this Court. On March 15, 2000, this Court reversed the order and remanded the matter to require Perkins County to perform the assessments in an appropriate matter.1
[¶ 2.] On March 24, 2000, the circuit court ordered County to reassess the subject property in eight2 townships. On April 19, 2000, County held an executive session and reviewed approximately 200 property assessments and made determinations regarding whether certain property should be included or excluded for purposes of valuation. Township appealed this decision and a hearing was held before the Fourth Circuit Court3 on November 8, 2000. On November 29, 2000, the circuit court issued an order declaring the actions of County illegal and rendering all decisions made during the executive session void. The circuit court ordered County to hold a public meeting to discuss the decisions made during its executive session because the public was entitled to review and discuss these decisions.
[¶ 3.] On December 15, 2000, County held a meeting to discuss the property assessments. Rather than reviewing only those property assessments made at the April 19, 2000 executive session, County reassessed the entire county in attempts to comply with the circuit court order dated
[¶ 4.] On January 10, 2001, Township appealed County's actions of December 15, 2000, with a $250 bond. This is appeal # 22036.4 Specifically, Township appealed: 1) County's reassessment of the entire county as opposed to the originally assessed property; 2) County's actions regarding the inclusion and exclusion of transfers of real estate in County in 1997 and 1998; and 3) County's failure to include certain 1997 arms length transfers in direct violation of the court's March 24, 2000 judgment. The notice of appeal and bond were received by the county auditor on January 11, 2001.
[¶ 5.] On January 18, 2001, Township filed a motion for contempt of court and petition for writ of mandamus to compel County to show why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this Court's decision in Bison Township and the March 24, 2000 judgment. County filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2001, alleging that Township's appeal was not properly perfected within the statutory 20-day time limit of SDCL 7-8-29.
[¶ 6.] A hearing was held on April 25, 2001, at which time the circuit court dismissed Township's appeal on the ground that it had failed to timely file its appeal thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction. The circuit court found that Township filed its appeal one-day late and its bond twelve-days late and did not reach the substantive issues on any of the three cases. Township appeals to this Court arguing that it complied with the time requirements of SDCL 7-8-29. We reverse on the procedural issue and remand for a determination of the substantive issues raised by Township.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knecht v. Weber, 21846.
...never argued to the jury that this death was not cruel and unusual; nor objected that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding 640 N.W.2d 503 that death was effected in a cruel and unusual manner. His counsel admitted at the habeas hearing that he never considered researching this......
-
Upell v. Dewey Cnty. Comm'n, 27548.
...dismiss for improper service of process and expiration of the statute of limitations); Bison Twp. v. Perkins Cty., 2002 S.D. 22, ¶¶ 5–7, 640 N.W.2d 503, 505 (motion to dismiss and dismissal for untimely service of a notice of appeal).3 As this Court has often stated: “The issue of jurisdict......
-
Vitek v. Bon Homme County Bd. of Com'rs, 22216.
...of service, it is necessary to look elsewhere. [¶ 12.] We recently addressed this problem in the case of Bison Township v. Perkins County, 2002 SD 22, 640 N.W.2d 503. There, the circuit court dismissed the township's appeal because service was mailed to the appropriate parties on day 20, bu......
-
Aeg Processing Ctr. No. 58, Inc. v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Regulation, 26597.
...on Vitek v. Bon Homme County Board of Commissioners, 2002 S.D. 100, 650 N.W.2d 513, and Bison Township v. Perkins County, 2002 S.D. 22, 640 N.W.2d 503, to advance this argument. These cases are not helpful to AEG. [¶ 14.] In Vitek, the taxpayer timely appealed to the circuit court when the ......
-
Knecht v. Weber, 21846.
...never argued to the jury that this death was not cruel and unusual; nor objected that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding 640 N.W.2d 503 that death was effected in a cruel and unusual manner. His counsel admitted at the habeas hearing that he never considered researching this......
-
Upell v. Dewey Cnty. Comm'n, 27548.
...dismiss for improper service of process and expiration of the statute of limitations); Bison Twp. v. Perkins Cty., 2002 S.D. 22, ¶¶ 5–7, 640 N.W.2d 503, 505 (motion to dismiss and dismissal for untimely service of a notice of appeal).3 As this Court has often stated: “The issue of jurisdict......
-
Vitek v. Bon Homme County Bd. of Com'rs, 22216.
...of service, it is necessary to look elsewhere. [¶ 12.] We recently addressed this problem in the case of Bison Township v. Perkins County, 2002 SD 22, 640 N.W.2d 503. There, the circuit court dismissed the township's appeal because service was mailed to the appropriate parties on day 20, bu......
-
Aeg Processing Ctr. No. 58, Inc. v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Regulation, 26597.
...on Vitek v. Bon Homme County Board of Commissioners, 2002 S.D. 100, 650 N.W.2d 513, and Bison Township v. Perkins County, 2002 S.D. 22, 640 N.W.2d 503, to advance this argument. These cases are not helpful to AEG. [¶ 14.] In Vitek, the taxpayer timely appealed to the circuit court when the ......