Exploration Permit Renewal of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, Matter of, EX-5

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtMORGAN; WOLLMAN, C. J., and FOSHEIM; DUNN
Citation323 N.W.2d 858
Docket NumberNo. 13406,EX-5
Decision Date26 April 1982
PartiesIn the Matter of the EXPLORATION PERMIT RENEWAL OF SILVER KING MINES, PERMIT . Rehearing

Page 858

323 N.W.2d 858
In the Matter of the EXPLORATION PERMIT RENEWAL OF SILVER
KING MINES, PERMIT EX-5.
No. 13406.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Rehearing April 26, 1982.
Decided Aug. 25, 1982.

Page 859

James D. Leach, Rapid City, for appellant Black Hills Alliance.

Roxanne Giedd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellees South Dakota State Conservation Com'n and South Dakota Div. of Conservation; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., and Curtis Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.

Marvin Truhe of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, Rapid City, for appellee Silver King Mines.

MORGAN, Justice (on rehearing).

This case is before us on the petition of Silver King Mines for rehearing. The parties are referred to herein as they were referred to in the original opinion. The procedural background of the case is detailed in Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, 315 N.W.2d 689 (S.D.1982), and is capsulized as follows.

Silver King Mines held a one-year uranium exploration permit. In November, 1979, Silver King Mines applied for a renewal of the permit, which was challenged by Black Hills Alliance (appellants), an ecology group, at a contested hearing before the South Dakota State Conservation Commission and the South Dakota Division of Conservation (appellees) in January of 1980. The Conservation Commission granted the permit in March of 1980 and appellants immediately appealed the agency decision to the circuit court and moved for stay of Silver King Mines' uranium exploring activities under SDCL 1-26-32 pending the outcome of the appeal. The trial court denied the motion for stay on the grounds that SDCL 1-26-28 precludes a reviewing court from granting a stay pending appeal. The trial court later affirmed the administrative action. Only the ruling on the denial of the stay was the subject of the appeal to this court. In our previous opinion, a majority of the court held: (1) that the issue was not moot, and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to determine whether within its discretion, a further stay under SDCL 1-26-32 was appropriate. Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, supra.

Silver King Mines' petition for rehearing suggests that in arriving at the latter issue, the majority misconstrued the plain language of SDCL 1-26-28 by equating "the final determination" as termed therein with "the decision appealed from," as termed in SDCL 1-26-30.2. A majority of the court now agrees and we affirm the action of the trial court.

Three statutes interact in our examination of this issue. SDCL 1-26-30.2 provides that: "An appeal shall be allowed in the circuit court to any party in a contested case from a final decision, ruling or action of an agency." SDCL 1-26-32 provides, in pertinent part, that: "The appeal shall operate as a stay of all proceedings under such order or decision for a period of ten days, but shall not operate as a stay for a longer time, unless the court, upon at least three days notice to the parties and the agency, shall in its discretion order a further delay, pending final decision of such court." SDCL 1-26-28 provides, in pertinent part, that: "When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license ... the existing license does not expire, until the application has

Page 860

been finally determined by the agency...."

We read statutes to give effect to all provisions. State v. Heisinger, 252 N.W.2d 899 (S.D.1977). Similarly, multiple statutes covering the same subject matter are construed to give effect to each statute. Kinzler v. Nacey, 296 N.W.2d 725 (S.D.1980); See State v. Cheney, 261 N.W.2d 674, 676 (S.D.1978). Moreover, SDCL 1-26-32 applies generally to all appeals subject to the APA. Conversely, SDCL 1-26-28 is a specific statute applying to appeals from requests to renew existing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co. v. Bang, Nos. 18173
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 18, 1994
    ...that, where possible, statutes should be read in harmony and construed so as to give effect to each statute. In re Silver King Mines, 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982); Kinzler v. Nacey, 296 N.W.2d 725, 728 (S.D.1980). Where statutes do conflict, "the more recent enactment is controlling." In ......
  • Rushmore State Bank v. Kurylas, Inc., No. 15764
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 11, 1988
    ...statute and so as to have them exist in harmony. State v. Woods, 361 N.W.2d 620, 622 (S.D.1985); Matter of Exploration Permit Renewal, 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982). It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the intention of the law is to be primarily ascertained from the lan......
  • SDDS, Inc., In re, No. 96-2705
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1996
    ...it to the agency for reconsideration and a decision in accord with that court's directive.' " Matter of Exploration Permit Renewal, Etc., 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982) (quoting Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, 315 N.W.2d, 689, 693 (S.D.1982) (Morgan, J., 3 It does not appear that ......
  • Vreugdenhil v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., No. 17005
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • September 20, 1990
    ...294 (S.D.1982); In re Silver King Mines, 315 N.W.2d 689, 691 (S.D.1982), on reh'g In re Exploration Permit Renewal of Silver King Mines, 323 N.W.2d 858 (S.D.1982). However attractive it may be to liberally construe statutes to avoid a harsh result, this court will not so act when such actio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • National Farmers Union Property & Cas. Co. v. Bang, Nos. 18173
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 18, 1994
    ...that, where possible, statutes should be read in harmony and construed so as to give effect to each statute. In re Silver King Mines, 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982); Kinzler v. Nacey, 296 N.W.2d 725, 728 (S.D.1980). Where statutes do conflict, "the more recent enactment is controlling." In ......
  • Rushmore State Bank v. Kurylas, Inc., No. 15764
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 11, 1988
    ...statute and so as to have them exist in harmony. State v. Woods, 361 N.W.2d 620, 622 (S.D.1985); Matter of Exploration Permit Renewal, 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982). It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the intention of the law is to be primarily ascertained from the lan......
  • SDDS, Inc., In re, No. 96-2705
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1996
    ...it to the agency for reconsideration and a decision in accord with that court's directive.' " Matter of Exploration Permit Renewal, Etc., 323 N.W.2d 858, 860 (S.D.1982) (quoting Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, 315 N.W.2d, 689, 693 (S.D.1982) (Morgan, J., 3 It does not appear that ......
  • Vreugdenhil v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., No. 17005
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • September 20, 1990
    ...294 (S.D.1982); In re Silver King Mines, 315 N.W.2d 689, 691 (S.D.1982), on reh'g In re Exploration Permit Renewal of Silver King Mines, 323 N.W.2d 858 (S.D.1982). However attractive it may be to liberally construe statutes to avoid a harsh result, this court will not so act when such actio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT