Court Opinion

ID: 9592002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:37.769829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.575711
License: Public Domain

HANSON, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm.
Our venue statute relating to actions against a public officer is flexible and transitory in nature. It provides in the alternative that such actions "must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose". SDCL 15-5-2.
*578The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether or not plaintiff's employment by the State Highway Department in Pennington County was properly or legally terminated. Obviously, "some part of the cause of action" arose in Pennington County where plaintiff was employed and his dismissal took place. As the California Court characterized the effect of administrative action by a state official "It is where the shaft strikes him, not where it is drawn, that counts." Cecil v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 59 Cal.App.2d 793, 140 P.2d 125 and see Lynch v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.3d 929, 86 Cal.Rptr. 925 relating to the dismissal of a state employee.
The injury to plaintiff occurred in Pennington County and he should not be compelled to travel to the seat of government to seek redress. Therefore, because of the permissive and transitory nature of our statute it is my opinion this proceeding could properly be venued in either Pennington or Hughes County. As it was instituted in Pennington County it should remain there for trial.