Court Opinion

ID: 9528395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:40:45.411662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:03.208730
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and concurring in result in part).
I do not agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that Royal waived its notice of review argument by failing to cite authority. My reasons are:
*587(1) Royal cited to the statute, SDCL 10-46-5, but there are no cases annotated on that statute.
(2) Royal’s argument on fixed overhead costs was similar to its other arguments where authorities were cited.
(3) Royal’s argument was not even countered by Department, which never filed a reply brief.
As stated in my writing in Peterson v. Safeway Steel Scaffolds Co, 400 N.W.2d 909, 916 (S.D.1987), “this court is overreacting to SDCL 15-26A-60 which results in decisions that rely too heavily on waiver of a point or argument by failure to cite authorities.” We should follow the rule of Henrichs v. Henrichs, 426 N.W.2d 569 (S.D.1988), which held that a wife in a divorce action did not waive the issue of division of personal injury settlement proceeds by failing to cite authority for her arguments because the question was sufficiently one of first impression. Id., at 570-571.