Opinion ID: 1979901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether sdcl 45-9-58 is unconstitutional?

Text: The relevant part of SDCL 45-9-58 states: Any notice required by this chapter shall be given at the election of the Board of Minerals and Environment either by personal service or by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the state capitol city and in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the land affected, or some part thereof, is situated.... Only appellants Hight and Smolnikar presented this issue at the Board hearing. Only the appellant raising an issue on appeal is entitled to take advantage of that assignment of error. Novotny v. Bouley, 27 N.W.2d 813 (Minn.1947). All other appellants failed to present this issue at the Board hearing. Here appellants Hight and Smolnikar had actual notice of the hearing. Furthermore, the record shows that all appellants participated in the proceedings before the Board by presenting witnesses and by cross-examining Koch's witnesses. Under these circumstances, appellants have no standing to now challenge the constitutionality of SDCL 45-9-58. While the trial court found SDCL 45-9-58 to be constitutional, we do not need to reach that issue under this record. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), states the law: In sum, the requirement of personal jurisdiction may be intentionally waived, or for various reasons a defendant may be estopped from raising the issue. These characteristics portray it for what it is  a legal right protecting the individual... the actions of the defendant may amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court, whether voluntary or not. Here, appellants by making a general appearance before the Board and participating in all phases of the hearing, waived any objection they may have had and submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court.