In re Engels

4 Citing cases

  1. Equipment Service Professionals v. Denowh

    2005 S.D. 20 (S.D. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard. In re Engels, 2004 SD 97, ¶ 7, 687 N.W.2d 30, 32-33 (citing Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 2000 SD 85, ¶ 49, 612 N.W.2d 600, 611). ANALYSIS AND DECISION ISSUE

  2. Hanig v. City of Winner

    2005 S.D. 10 (S.D. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that where there was a failure to disclose a conflict of interest by a council member, the plaintiff was entitled to a new hearing

    In Kurylas, 424 N.W.2d at 653, we held that, as between the state and the licensee, there clearly is no general property right in a liquor license in South Dakota. See also State v. I-90 Truck Haven Service, Inc., 2003 SD 51, ¶ 16, 662 N.W.2d at 292; In re Engels, 2004 SD 97, ¶ 13, 687 N.W.2d 30, 34. License renewal applicants in other jurisdictions may be entitled to rudimentary procedural due process, but our law does not require imposing the same process allowed to those whose licenses are up for revocation, because "there clearly is no general property right in [an alcoholic beverage] license in South Dakota as between the state and the licensee."

  3. Butts v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    852 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 4 times

    Finally, the South Dakota Supreme Court determined that an amendment to a statute that removed the power to suspend liquor licenses could not be applied retroactively because the “authority to revoke liquor licenses was not merely a procedural function, but was the power to affect the substance of the license itself.” In re Engels, 687 N.W.2d 30, 34 (S.D.2004). In the present case, the enactment of SDCL 21–3–14 altered the state's choice-of-law rule for survival of personal injury claims only when one of the parties dies. It did not abolish or create new substantive law.

  4. Jacobs v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc'y

    849 F. Supp. 2d 893 (D.S.D. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Finally, the South Dakota Supreme Court determined that an amendment to a statute that removed the power to suspend liquor licenses could not be applied retroactively because the “authority to revoke liquor licenses was not merely a procedural function, but was the power to affect the substance of the license itself.” In re Engels, 687 N.W.2d 30, 34 (S.D.2004). In the present case, the enactment of SDCL 21–3–14 altered the state's choice-of-law rule for survival of personal injury claims only when one of the parties dies. It did not abolish or create new substantive law.