LP6 Claimants, LLC v. S.D. Dep't of Tourism & State Dev.

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Legacy Land Co.

    2023 S.D. 58 (S.D. 2023)

    , we need not treat the opinions of reasonableness offered by experts the same way because reasonableness is a legal conclusion to be made by the court. Accord LP6 Claimants, LLC v. S.D. Dep't of Tourism & State Dev., 2020 S.D. 38, ¶ 12, 945 N.W.2d 911, 915 ("[W]hile the court must accept allegations of fact as true when considering a motion to dismiss, the court is free to ignore . . . sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations." (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

  2. Pres. French Creek v. Cnty. of Custer

    2024 S.D. 45 (S.D. 2024)

    Since it does not appear on the record before us that Preserve raised the notice issue below, we will not consider it. See State v. Krouse, 2022 S.D. 54, 980 N.W.2d 237, 251 (It is well-settled that "[w]hen an issue is raised for the first time on appeal this Court need not consider it.") (citing LP6 Claimants, LLC v. S.D. Dep't of Tourism and State Dev., 2020 S.D. 38, ¶ 24, 945 N.W.2d 911, 918). Moreover, Preserve acknowledges that it did not challenge the Permit or raise the issue of notice before the DANR.

  3. State v. Krouse

    2022 S.D. 54 (S.D. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    It is well settled that "[w]hen an issue is raised for the first time on appeal this Court need not consider it." See LP6 Claimants, LLC v. S.D. Dep't of Tourism and State Dev., 2020 S.D. 38, ¶ 24, 945 N.W.2d 911, 918. We therefore decline to address them.