From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kanaly v. State by and Through Janklow

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Mar 25, 1987
403 N.W.2d 33 (S.D. 1987)

Opinion

No. 15249.

Considered on Briefs January 15, 1987.

Decided March 25, 1987. Rehearing Denied April 30, 1987.

Appeal from the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Hughes County, Robert A. Miller, J.

John W. Bastian, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Grant Gormley, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Pierre, for defendants and appellees; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on the brief.

Charles Lacey, Sioux Falls, for intervenor and appellant.


This is an appeal from an order dismissing intervenor Ethel Hagen's second amended complaint. We affirm.

The complaint in intervention, as amended, seeks to revisit the constitutionality and propriety of Chapter 138 of the 1984 South Dakota Session Laws (S.B. 221). Senate Bill 221 converted the campus of the University of South Dakota, Springfield, from an educational institution into a minimum security prison and transferred control of the Springfield prison to the Board of Charities and Corrections.

In Kanaly v. State, 368 N.W.2d 819 (S.D. 1985) ( Kanaly I), this court dealt with the constitutionality of S.B. 221. In Kanaly I, we concluded that S.B. 221 would not violate Article VIII, § 7 of the South Dakota Constitution so long as the legislature reimbursed the perpetual trust fund provided for in § 7 for the full value of the property and interest transferred to the Board of Charities and Corrections. This has been done. Intervenor now suggests that S.B. 221 violates Article VIII, § 8 of the South Dakota Constitution. However, § 8 of the Constitution is simply a companion section to § 7. Therefore, because of our decision in Kanaly I, there is not now any constitutional question remaining with regard to § 8.

Intervenor next contends that the Springfield campus became a dedicated educational institution on its acquisition and could be utilized for no other purpose. Intervenor relies primarily upon Patrick v. Blake, 70 S.D. 494, 19 N.W.2d 220 (1945). In Patrick, this court ruled that when a private citizen dedicates his property for a public use and the state accepts the grant, the property can be used only for the purpose to which it has been dedicated. 70 S.D. at 501, 19 N.W.2d at 223. The present case is easily distinguished from Patrick, however. Here, the warranty deed from John A. Burbank by which the state acquired the land for the Springfield campus contained no restriction or reversionary clause such as that present in the deed involved in Patrick. 70 S.D. at 497-498, 19 N.W.2d at 222. Accordingly, we reject Intervenor's contention.

Finally, Intervenor claims that S.B. 221 violated the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. These claims are unsupported by any relevant authority and are contrary to law and fact. The failure to cite supporting authority is a violation of SDCL 15-26A-60(6) and the issue is thereby deemed waived. Kelley v. Kirk, 391 N.W.2d 652 (S.D. 1986); Corbly v. Matheson, 335 N.W.2d 347 (S.D. 1983).

We again reaffirm the disposition of the constitutional claims made with respect to S.B. 221 and affirm the trial court's order dismissing Intervenor's second amended complaint.

HEEGE, Circuit Judge, for MILLER, J., disqualified.


Summaries of

Kanaly v. State by and Through Janklow

Supreme Court of South Dakota
Mar 25, 1987
403 N.W.2d 33 (S.D. 1987)
Case details for

Kanaly v. State by and Through Janklow

Case Details

Full title:Douglas J. KANALY, Patrick S. Konechne, Dennis Lihs, Robert McBride…

Court:Supreme Court of South Dakota

Date published: Mar 25, 1987

Citations

403 N.W.2d 33 (S.D. 1987)

Citing Cases

Vold v. Broin & Associates, Inc.

We do not address this second issue because Vold did not cite any authority to support his argument that the…

Priebe v. Priebe

In addition, Mary cited no authority stating that a trial court has no right to consider a minority discount…