Court Opinion

ID: 9688175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:36:46.354727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:35.607382
License: Public Domain

WINANS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion written by Justice Wollman for this Court for the reason that McFarland v. Barron cited in the opinion as the basis for the holding is the law in South Dakota. *466Had I been on the Court when it was decided, I would have joined in the dissent which would then have been the majority opinion. However, opinions of this Court must not shift with the winds or the economic predilections of changes in personnel. I wrote a dissent in Berven -v. Board of Regents, referred to in Justice Wollman’s footnote, which case sets forth my own feeling about the indebtedness prohibited by the Constitution. In my humble opinion we have just simply been busily engaged in chipping away at the Constitution on this issue and we have pretty well emasculated it. All this, of course, since Boe v. Foss, cited in the same footnote. By so doing, we have established what to me is the rule of law on which people have a right to rely and that settles it. To now overrule McFarland, supra, would be a disservice to the business world and the legal profession. Stare decisis still means something to me.