Kaberna v. School Bd. of Lead-Deadwood School Dist. 40-1, LEAD-DEADWOOD
| Decision Date | 17 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16362,16346,LEAD-DEADWOOD,s. 16362 |
| Parties | 53 Ed. Law Rep. 245 Gary G. KABERNA, Janice Kaberna, Cameron Zopp, Donna Zopp, William Urban, Patti Urban, Joseph Ford, Margie Ford, Gregory Brownlow, Carleen Brownlow and Concerned Residents of Nemo Common School District 55, Appellees, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OFSCHOOL DISTRICT 40-1, Appellant. . Considered on Briefs |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Wayne F. Gilbert and John J. Delaney, Rapid City, for appellees.
Thomas E. Carr, Belle Fourche, for appellant.
In this appeal we affirm a trial court's reversal of a school board's decision to close a school without first holding an election on the issue. We apply the Doctrine of the Last Antecedent in construing the revelant statute.
The Nemo Elementary Attendance Center is a school which was operated by a former common school district for several years, including the 1968-69 school year. * On April 20, 1988, the board made a decision to close the Nemo Center for the 1988-89 school year. Subsequent to the board's decision, Gary Kaberna and other concerned residents of the school district presented the board with a petition requesting a special election on the issue of closure of the Nemo Center. The board, relying on the provisions of SDCL 13-6-9, denied the request for a special election.
Following the board's refusal to hold an election, Kaberna filed an appeal with the trial court. The trial court entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment reversing the board's decision, basing its reversal on a finding that the board exceeded its authority in closing the center without holding an election.
This appeal involves an interpretation of SDCL 13-6-9 which reads:
The school board of a school district shall continue to operate an attendance center or elementary school operated by a former common school district during the 1968-69 school year until such time as only the resident voters of the former common district area which operated the elementary school shall vote to cease operating the school or schools. The election shall be called by the school board of the school district by resolution or upon a petition by twenty percent of the voters residing in the area and shall be conducted in accordance with the laws governing elections in school districts. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any elementary school which by its continued operation would make the district ineligible for state aid under the provisions of Secs. 13-13-10 to 13-13-41, inclusive. The board may close such a school when the average daily membership does not exceed five and bus service is provided within two and one-half miles of pupils' residence. When a rural school has been closed for two consecutive years by board action but no election has been held, the school shall be considered to have been closed by the voters, but may be reopened at the option of the board. (emphasis added).
The board asserts that because the average daily membership of the Nemo Center did not exceed five during the 1987-88 school year and because bus service would be provided within two and one-half miles of the pupils' residence, it had authority under the above statute to close the center without an election. In response, Kaberna argues that although these facts are true the board was still required by SDCL 13-6-9 to hold an election because the continued operation of the Nemo Center would not have made the district ineligible for state aid.
This court's inquiry, therefore, must focus on the meaning of the phrase "such a school" emphasized in SDCL 13-6-9 as quoted above. If, as urged by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co.
...is something in the subject matter or dominant purpose which requires a different interpretation." Kaberna v. School Bd. of Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. 40-1, 438 N.W.2d 542, 543 (S.D.1989) (citing Lewis v. Annie Creek Mining Co., 74 S.D. 26, 33, 48 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1951)). See State v. Ventlin......
-
Satellite Cable Services, Inc. v. Northern Electric Co-op., Inc., 20046
...534 N.W.2d 63, 65 (S.D.1995) ; Rogers v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 520 N.W.2d 614, 617 (S.D.1994)(citing Kaberna v. School Bd. of Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist. 40-1, 438 N.W.2d 542, 543 (S.D.1989)); Lewis v. Annie Creek Min. Co., 74 S.D. 26, 33, 48 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1951). The limiting clause in SDCL......
-
American Meat Institute v. Barnett
...interpretation." Lewis v. Annie Creek Mining Co., 74 S.D. 26, 48 N.W.2d 815, 819 (1951), quoted in Kaberna v. School Board Lead-Deadwood School District, 438 N.W.2d 542, 543 (S.D.1989). Thus, the term "in this state" must be construed as modifying the clause "for slaughter." That being the ......
-
Farmland Ins. Companies of Des Moines, Iowa v. Heitmann, 17854
...F.Supp. 1264, 1266 (D.S.D.1974) (citing M'Clurg v. Kingsland, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 202, 11 L.Ed. 102 (1843)); Cf. Kaberna v. School Bd. of Lead-Deadwood, 438 N.W.2d 542, 543 (S.D.1989). Here, the phrase allowing contractual modification appears only in the first sentence of the statute. To acce......