Opinion ID: 1879728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effective date of sdcl 35-11-1 and amended sdcl 35-4-78 and retroactive application

Text: The attempted abrogation of the rule in Walz did not bar Baatz' cause of action for another reason. The statute and the amendment were enacted into law during the 1985 legislative session and became effective on July 1, 1985. Baatz started their action against the Arrow Bar in 1984. It is settled law in this state that a statute will not operate retroactively unless the legislative act clearly expresses an intent that it so operate. Matter of Adams, 329 N.W.2d 882 (S.D.1983); State ex rel. Van Emmerik v. Janklow, 304 N.W.2d 700 (S.D.1981); First Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, 394 N.W.2d 709, 716 (S.D.1986). See also SDCL 2-14-21. Also, under SDCL 2-14-24, no civil action commenced before the present code of laws took effect is affected by its provisions. First Nat. Bank, supra at 716. Accordingly, we conclude that the Baatz lawsuit filed against Arrow Bar in 1984 is not affected by a statute subsequently enacted in 1985.