Court Opinion

ID: 9593184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:20:24.859389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:15.044472
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with issues 1, 2, and 3, but dissent on Issue 4.
*613The majority correctly states that “[o]nly costs authorized by statute are recoverable.” The majority then cites SDCL 15-17-4 which provides in part: “[T]he clerk shall also tax ... reasonable copying fees.” The majority claims they could “find statutory authority to affirm trial court’s award of costs with the exception of copying costs_” (emphasis added).
SDCL 15-17-4 specifically allows copying fees as taxable costs! In fact, the trial court allowed copying fees as taxable costs. The trial court found these copying fees to be reasonable under SDCL 15-17-4 and they should be allowed absent a showing to the contrary. The majority denies K.O. Lee the amount of its copying fees by assuming the trial court’s “clerical error” was its reference to the item rather than its reference to the amount.
At the very least, we should remand to the trial court to correct its own “clerical error” and to reconsider the copying fees and the deposition transcript costs under the statutory authority of SDCL 15-17-4.