Opinion ID: 2136992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Doctrine of Absolute Immunity

Text: The State urges sovereign immunity as second issue upon which to sustain the grant of summary judgment. Moeller counters by claiming sovereign immunity is not an issue in this proceeding. We quote from his reply brief, Moeller does not seek to hold judge, prosecutor, or state liable for his damages; he seeks only to have his claim examined and reported in accordance with these statutory provisions, referring to SDCL ch. 21-32. We further quote from his brief, if the State were allowed to raise the immunity of each employee or agent as a defense to every claim ever filed under SDCL 21-32-1 et seq., no claim could ever be considered. Such a result renders the claim statute meaningless. We agree with Moeller. SDCL 21-32-1 creates the office of commissioner of claims to hear alleged claims against the state on contract or tort. The statute further provides for a circuit judge to act ex officio as the commissioner of claims. [4] SDCL 21-32-3 provides a procedure for filing a petition for a just and meritorious claim against the State for the payment of which no appropriation exists. Service upon the Attorney General is required by SDCL 21-32-4 in the manner of service of a summons in civil actions. The statutes direct the commissioner to set a hearing date at which the commissioner hears evidence in support of, or in opposition to, such claim. It is further provided evidence in connection with the merits of such claim shall be in conformity with the rules of evidence in civil proceedings. SDCL 21-32-7 requires the commissioner to prepare his findings fully itemized in respect to the amount of the claim or damages which must be filed with the Governor, who must submit the same to the next session of the Legislature for consideration, compromise, settlement or rejection. The findings of the commissioner are advisory only, and do not acknowledge liability in any manner or extent on the part of the state. It is obvious the Legislature is the final arbitrator as to whether or not the claim is paid. If they pay the claim, sovereign immunity, in effect, is waived. Or, they may decline payment on the basis of sovereign immunity, or for any other reasons. This court said in Conway v. Humbert, 82 S.D. 317, 323, 145 N.W.2d 524, 528 (1966): The legislature has provided a procedure for the investigation of claims arising on contract or tort against the state and for the payment of which there are no available appropriations. SDC 1960 Supp. 33.43. The commissioner of claims is empowered to hear and consider evidence and make findings and recommendations to the legislature. This act specifically provides that the findings of the commissioner shall be advisory only, and shall not be construed or considered as an acknowledgment of liability in any manner or extent on the part of the state. This statute creates a legislative instrumentality or agency authorized to find or determine facts. The powers and functions of the commissioner are not judicial. Sovereign immunity of the state is not waived and liabilities of the state are not enlarged. [5] (Emphasis added). We reverse the Commissioner on both issues. HERTZ, Circuit Court Judge, Acting as Supreme Court Justice, concurs. HENDERSON, J., concurs specially. SABERS, J. and AMUNDSON, Circuit Court Judge, concur in part and dissent in part. WUEST, J., concurs specially in part and dissents in part. AMUNDSON, Circuit Court Judge, sitting for MILLER, C.J., disqualified.