Court Opinion

ID: 9515042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:53:19.668995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:24.251865
License: Public Domain

GILBERTSON,
Chief Justice (concurring in result).
[¶ 21.] Edsill attempts to argue “substantial compliance” under the personal service statute. “An advocacy of the doctrine of substantial compliance finds absolutely no support in our statutes concerning service of process.” Wagner, 1998 SD 9 at ¶ 17, 574 N.W.2d at 630 (Gilbertson, J., dissenting). As such, it is not even a valid argument by Edsill to avoid the result arrived at by this Court herein. Therefore, I concur in result only.