Olson v. Pulaski Common School Dist. of Faulk County, No. 9693

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtHANSON; RENTTO
Citation77 S.D. 416,92 N.W.2d 678
Docket NumberNo. 9693
Decision Date06 November 1958
PartiesEdward G. OLSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PULASKI COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FAULK COUNTY, South Dakota, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 678

92 N.W.2d 678
77 S.D. 416
Edward G. OLSON, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
PULASKI COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FAULK COUNTY, South
Dakota, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 9693.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Nov. 6, 1958.

[77 S.D. 417] L. A. Melby, Faulkton, Royhl, Benson & Beach, Huron, for defendant-appellant.

R. G. Gross, Ipswich, for plaintiff-respondent.

HANSON, Judge.

On March 25, 1957 petitioner, Edward G. Olson, filed an application for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of Faulk County seeking: (1), to compel the Pulaski Common School District of Faulk County to pay the Faulkton Independent School District the sum of $417.82 as tuition charges for his two children, Marlene and Marvin Olson, for the school year 1955-56; and (2), to compel the Pulaski Common School District to assign his two children to the Faulkton Independent School

Page 679

for the year 1956-57. The court issued its alternative writ of mandamus and after a hearing thereon denied petitioner's request to compel payment of the 1955-56 tuition. No appeal is taken from this portion of the judgment. The court, however, issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the defendant Common School District to assign the Olson children to the Faulkton Independent School for the school year 1956-57. The School District appeals.

The Pulaski Common School District maintained the Reed School for the use of its patrons. Prior to 1955 several of the elementary students residing in the district attended the Faulkton Independent School. At the annual meeting held on June 21, 1955 a majority of the Common School District electors voted to instruct the school board that all elementary students should attend the Reed School and no tuition or transportation should be paid outside the district. See SDC 15.2310 as amended by Ch. 59, Laws 1953. The school board acted in accord with the instruction of the electors. No appeal was taken from the decision of the board. Thereafter, all of the elementary students attended the Reed School for the year 1955-56 with the [77 S.D. 418] exception of the two Olson children. They attended the Faulkton Independent School.

On June 19, 1956 at the annual meeting of the Pulaski School District a majority of the electors again voted in favor of having all elementary students attend the Reed School for the year 1956-57 and that no tuition or transportation should be paid for attendance outside the district. The school board again followed the instructions of the electors and no appeal was taken from its decision. As before, all of the elementary students within the district attended the Reed School during the school year of 1956-57 except the Olson children. On November 27, 1956 the defendant school board refused to pay tuition and transportation for the Olson children's attendance at the Faulkton Independent School. No appeal was taken from this decision.

Measured along section lines the Reed School is situated three miles directly east of the Olson farm home. The east mile of the route is graded and graveled. The west two miles are referred to as prairie roads. Petitioner alleged in his application for a writ of mandamus that this road was 'nothing more than a prairie trail, and is not available for public travel during most of the winter months because of snow, nor is it usable in the spring or fall months, at which time much of the area is covered by slough and potholes of water and the ground is soft and untravelable.' The evidence is conflicting as to the actual condition of the road.

The Olsons could also travel to the Reed School by going two miles south on a graded dirt road, east three miles and then north two miles, a distance of seven miles. They could also go two miles north, three miles east and two miles south, a total distance of seven miles. The north route is all graded and graveled. In taking their children to the Faulkton School the Olsons were required to travel either the north or south route. The distance to the Faulkton school by the south route was nine miles. It was fourteen miles by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Certification of a Question of Law from U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of South Dakota, Southern Division, Matter of, A-1
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 7, 1986
    ...SDCL 21-5-1, but, rather, as providing clarification on how the statute is to operate. Olson v. Pulaski Common Sch. Dist. of Faulk County, 77 S.D. 416, 419, 92 N.W.2d 678, 680 (1958). We hold that SDCL 21-5-1, as it existed prior to the 1984 amendment, provided a cause of action for the dea......
  • Stene v. School Bd. of Beresford Independent School Dist., No. 68 of Union County, Nos. 11174
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 2, 1973
    ...by which they could secure judicial review of their contention that the levies were excessive. Olson v. Pulaski Common School District, 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678; Thies v. Renner, 78 S.D. 617, 106 N.W.2d 253. The fact that their appeals were timely taken from the board's transfer decisions......
  • Dunker v. Brown County Bd. of Ed., Nos. 10009
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 15, 1963
    ...v. Herrick Ind. Sch. Dist., 71 S.D. 7, 20 N.W.2d 516; Arnold v. Hubbard, 63 S.D. 454, 260 N.W. 621; Olson v. Pulaski Common Sch. Dist., 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678; Larsen v. Seneca Ind. Sch. Dist., 50 S.D. 444, 210 N.W. 661; Brown v. Schenk, 54 S.D. 146, 222 N.W. 690; Wentz v. Bowdle Ins. S......
  • South Dakota SIF v. Homestake Mining, No. 20813.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 22, 1999
    ...amendment was for clarification or whether the amendment altered the law." Id. at 39 (citing Olson v. Pulaski Common School Dist., 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678 (1958)). The Court has broad discretion in determining the extent to which it must look at the subsequent amendment. Id. The Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Certification of a Question of Law from U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of South Dakota, Southern Division, Matter of, A-1
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 7, 1986
    ...SDCL 21-5-1, but, rather, as providing clarification on how the statute is to operate. Olson v. Pulaski Common Sch. Dist. of Faulk County, 77 S.D. 416, 419, 92 N.W.2d 678, 680 (1958). We hold that SDCL 21-5-1, as it existed prior to the 1984 amendment, provided a cause of action for the dea......
  • Stene v. School Bd. of Beresford Independent School Dist., No. 68 of Union County, Nos. 11174
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 2, 1973
    ...by which they could secure judicial review of their contention that the levies were excessive. Olson v. Pulaski Common School District, 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678; Thies v. Renner, 78 S.D. 617, 106 N.W.2d 253. The fact that their appeals were timely taken from the board's transfer decisions......
  • Dunker v. Brown County Bd. of Ed., Nos. 10009
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • April 15, 1963
    ...v. Herrick Ind. Sch. Dist., 71 S.D. 7, 20 N.W.2d 516; Arnold v. Hubbard, 63 S.D. 454, 260 N.W. 621; Olson v. Pulaski Common Sch. Dist., 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678; Larsen v. Seneca Ind. Sch. Dist., 50 S.D. 444, 210 N.W. 661; Brown v. Schenk, 54 S.D. 146, 222 N.W. 690; Wentz v. Bowdle Ins. S......
  • South Dakota SIF v. Homestake Mining, No. 20813.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 22, 1999
    ...amendment was for clarification or whether the amendment altered the law." Id. at 39 (citing Olson v. Pulaski Common School Dist., 77 S.D. 416, 92 N.W.2d 678 (1958)). The Court has broad discretion in determining the extent to which it must look at the subsequent amendment. Id. The Cou......
  • 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