Case Title: BH DAIL v. City of Rapid City

Citation: 216 N.W.2d 556

Docket Number: 

State: south-dakota

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1974-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
216 N.W.2d 556 (1974) DAIL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF RAPID CITY, Defendant and Respondent. No. 11278. Supreme Court of South Dakota. April 1, 1974. Goodrich & Looby, Pierre, for plaintiff and appellant. Ray E. Woodsend, City Atty., Rapid City, for defendant and respondent. WUEST, Circuit Judge. This is an action in which the plaintiff sought an injunction and other relief to restrain Rapid City, the defendant, from paying funds to the Legal Aid Assistance Program, which program provided legal services for poor people in Rapid City. The court issued a show cause order requiring the defendant to show cause why it should not be restrained from paying any sums to the Legal Aid Assistance Program, and ex parte entered an order restraining the city from paying any money until a hearing could be held. The city filed a motion asking the court to dissolve the "temporary injunction" and a hearing was held. Upon completion of the hearing, the court made a statement saying the temporary restraining order would be dissolved and that the city could pay out the money. A formal order to this effect was entered more than a year later. The plaintiff appeals from the order stating he appeals from the "Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint". Obviously, the order did not dismiss the complaint. What the court did was dissolve the temporary restraining order. There is a difference between a temporary restraining order and a temporary or interlocutory injunction. SDCL 21-8-11 provides: In Beers v. City of Watertown, 1920, 42 S.D. 441 at 447-448, 176 N.W. 149 at 150, the court said: Accord: Groton Independent Consol. Dist. No. 1 v. Townsend, 50 S.D. 284, 209 N.W. 651. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. All the Justices concur. WUEST, Circuit Judge, sitting for DOYLE, J., disqualified.