Court Opinion

ID: 9514750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:51:29.765143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:20.532599
License: Public Domain

AMUNDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 35.] I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 36.] This Court previously held in Schroeder v. Department of Soc. Servs., 529 N.W.2d 589, 591 (S.D.1995), that *807“SDCL 1-26-36 requires the court to enter separate findings of fact and conclusions of law specifying where and why Commission’s decision was in error.” (Emphasis added.) Further, we held that the “circuit courts, acting as a reviewing court for administrative decisions, must dearly articulate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support their decisions.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added). Therefore, the entering of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the circuit court are mandatory, not discretionary. See id.
[¶ 37.] In the present case, the circuit court refused to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its reversal of Board of Pardons and Paroles. As we stated in Schroeder, “[without entering findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court cannot decipher why the circuit court reversed the trier of fact in this case.” Id. Before a meaningful appellate review can be conducted on any of the'issues in this case, I would remand this action to the circuit court with instructions to enter the mandatory findings and conclusions.