Middle Creek School Dist. No. 18, of Butte County v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 10426
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERTS |
| Citation | 83 S.D. 107,155 N.W.2d 450 |
| Parties | MIDDLE CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 18, OF BUTTE COUNTY, South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Butte County, South Dakota, Defendant and Appellant. Henry THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Butte County, South Dakota, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 10426,10426 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 1968 |
Gale B. Wyman and Walter Mueller, Belle Fourche, for defendant and appellant.
Bangs, McCullen, Butler & Foye, Rapid City, for plaintiffs and respondents.
Appeals to the Circuit Court of Butte County from a decision of the county board of education of that county arising out of proceedings to attach the Middle Creek School District No. 18 to the Belle Fourche Independent School District were taken by the Middle Creek School District and Henry Thompson, a resident and taxpayer of the district. After consolidation and trial of the appeals, the circuit court entered its judgment reversing the action of the county board.
The appeal to this court presents for our determination the questions (1) whether the decision merging the school districts was reviewable on the appeals to the circuit court and (2) if the appeals were timely and the circuit court acquired jurisdiction whether the record sustains the determination of the trial court to the effect that the county board of education not having adopted a master plan acted beyond the scope of its authority in merging the school districts.
Chapter 15.20 of the 1960 Supplement to the South Dakota Code of 1939 is entitled 'School District Organization' and deals with the formation of school districts. The issues before us arise within the purview of this chapter and amendments thereto.
SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2001 contains definitions of terms used in the chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Subdivision (1) thereof as amended by Chap. 69, Laws 1961, defines the term 'reorganization' to mean and include 'the formation, consolidation, or subdivision of school districts.'
SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2018 Chap. 73, Laws 1963, 1 contained these provisions: 'The county board of education may attach any school district which has failed to operate a school during the preceding two school fiscal years to another school district or districts.' The attachment of a school district under these provisions constitutes a 'reorganization'. Knodel Common School Dist. No. 58 v. County Board of Education, S.D., 144 N.W.2d 38.
An appeal from the decision of a county board reorganizing school districts to the circuit court is governed by the provisions of SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2023 2 read together with the statute providing generally for appeals from school board decisions. 3 Piedmont Ind. School Dist. No. 34 v. Meade County Board of Education, 78 S.D. 384, 103 N.W.2d 177; County School Board v. Cottonwood School Dist. No. 41, 81 S.D. 530, 137 N.W.2d 882. The provisions of that section applicable to an appeal from a decision of the county board involving a reorganization of school districts reads: 'Any party feeling aggrieved by any decision of the county board * * * involving the preparation and approval of the master plan or involving any other decision which such boards * * * are obligated or empowered to make under the provisions of this chapter shall be entitled to appeal such decision within ninety days to the Circuit Court'.
The facts are stipulated, but need not be stated in detail. It appears that Middle Creek School District had not operated a school for more than two years and that a proposal to attach the same to another district met with opposition. At a meeting of the county board on January 9, 1964, a resolution providing that such district be attached to Belle Fourche Independent School District was considered by the county board and rejected. The resolution was thereafter considered by the board and adopted on September 24, 1964. The county board had not previously adopted a master plan for the county, but was operating under a county unit master plan as authorized by SDC 1930 Supp. 15.2007(8). The resolution discloses that the question of attachment was determined and resolved as follows:
'Whereas, Sec. 15.2018 of the South Dakota Code, 1960 Supplement, as amended by Chapter 73 of the 1963 Session Laws rovides for combination of school districts by the County Board of Education; * * * Now, therefore, be it resolved, That 'Middle Creek School District Number Eighteen (18)' of Butte County, South Dakota, be, and the same is hereby, attached to 'Beele Fourche Independent School District Number Twenty-Six (26)' of Butte County, South Dakota, and that such attachment be effected according to the statutes and laws in such cases made and provided.'
It is clear that this is a reorganization decision involving the attachment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cable v. Union County Bd. of County Com'Rs, 25074.
...by the filing of appeal from a final order or judgment. Middle Creek School Dist. No. 18, of Butte County v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 [¶ 53.] In the instant case, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to address Cable's motion for summary judgment ......
-
State v. Feiok
...502 (S.D.1982); In Re Mackrill's Addition, 85 S.D. 196, 179 N.W.2d 268 (1970); Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 155 N.W.2d 450 (1968), except by appeal the Supreme Court does acquire jurisdiction sufficient to determine that the trial court had, or lac......
-
Jansen v. Lemmon Federal Credit Union, 19671
...Munce Bros. Transfer & Storage, 461 N.W.2d 587, 588 (S.D.1990); see generally Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 (1968). We find no flaw in Jansen's logic that SDCL 20-13-35.1 allows a charging party the option to shift from the ......
-
Maasjo v. McLaughlin School Dist. No. 15-2, s. 17665
...jurisdiction. See Reiff v. Avon Sch. Dist. No. 4-1, 458 N.W.2d 358 (S.D.1990); Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte Cty. Bd. of Educ., 83 S.D. 107, 155 N.W.2d 450 SDCL 13-46-3 provides: Such appeal shall be taken by serving a notice of appeal upon the school board Page 624 or special com......
-
Cable v. Union County Bd. of County Com'Rs, 25074.
...by the filing of appeal from a final order or judgment. Middle Creek School Dist. No. 18, of Butte County v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 [¶ 53.] In the instant case, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to address Cable's motion for summary judgment ......
-
State v. Feiok
...502 (S.D.1982); In Re Mackrill's Addition, 85 S.D. 196, 179 N.W.2d 268 (1970); Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 155 N.W.2d 450 (1968), except by appeal the Supreme Court does acquire jurisdiction sufficient to determine that the trial court had, or lac......
-
Jansen v. Lemmon Federal Credit Union, 19671
...Munce Bros. Transfer & Storage, 461 N.W.2d 587, 588 (S.D.1990); see generally Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte County Bd. of Ed., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 (1968). We find no flaw in Jansen's logic that SDCL 20-13-35.1 allows a charging party the option to shift from the ......
-
Maasjo v. McLaughlin School Dist. No. 15-2, s. 17665
...jurisdiction. See Reiff v. Avon Sch. Dist. No. 4-1, 458 N.W.2d 358 (S.D.1990); Middle Creek Sch. Dist. No. 18 v. Butte Cty. Bd. of Educ., 83 S.D. 107, 155 N.W.2d 450 SDCL 13-46-3 provides: Such appeal shall be taken by serving a notice of appeal upon the school board Page 624 or special com......