Opinion ID: 901628
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion Hearing

Text: [¶ 17.] Inmates finally argue that because there was no hearing on the summary judgment motion, they were not allowed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. . . . A hearing would have allowed [them] to show a clear violation of Article XIV Section 2. They claim that since there were questions of constitutional nature as to [Administrators'] failure to properly carry out their ministerial duties a hearing should have been held. (Inmate's Br. 3) (emphasis added). However, as discussed supra, n. 5, the ministerial/discretionary distinction would have been immaterial in considering the Administrators' entitlement to statutory immunity under SDCL §§ 3-21-8 and 3-21-9. Therefore, even if Inmates were prevented from developing a factual record relating to the ministerial/discretionary duty distinction, that defect would not have precluded summary judgment because it did not prevent the articulation of a genuine issue of material fact. [¶ 18.] But more fundamentally, we note that Inmates do not argue that they were denied the opportunity to file any pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits demonstrating the existence of questions of material fact on any issue. See SDCL 15-6-56(c). [13] We also note that Inmates' response to the motion for summary judgment did not attempt to raise any issues of fact. They resisted the Administrators' summary judgment motion simply: based on a supporting brief, [the] statement of uncontested Facts, [ sic ] and [the] evidence attached to the statement of uncontested facts. Considering their response and the fact that the circuit court may hear evidence on motions by affidavit, oral testimony or deposition, SDCL 15-6-43(e), the lack of a hearing did not deny Inmates an opportunity to oppose summary judgment by identifying material issues of disputed fact. We finally observe that, oral testimony at summary judgment motion[] hearings should be allowed only in rare circumstances and for the exclusive purposes of clarification or correction. Millard v. City of Sioux Falls, 1999 SD 18, ¶ 12, 589 N.W.2d 217, 219. And here, Inmates have not argued that oral argument was necessary for clarification or correction. [¶ 19.] For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. [¶ 20.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.