Court Opinion

ID: 9692604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:58:33.59968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.627241
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur fully on Issue I. However, I respectfully dissent on Issue II because the majority bases its decision on federal case law but fails to recognize the differences between South Dakota law and federal law *318on the question of costs. In South Dakota, a party may recover as costs only those items which are specifically authorized hy statute. Heer v. State, 432 N.W.2d 559 (S.D.1988); Hepper v. Triple U Enterprises, Inc., 388 N.W.2d 525 (S.D.1986). Federal courts, on the other hand, have “broad discretion” under 28 U.S.C. 1920 to tax costs, Meder v. Everest & Jennings, Inc., 553 F.Supp. 149 (E.D.Mo.1982), and the burden is on the losing party to show the impropriety of an allowance. Principe v. McDonald’s Corp., 95 F.R.D. 34 (1982). Since the cost of obtaining copies of depositions is not specifically mentioned in SDCL 15-17-4, the decision of the trial court in refusing to tax such costs should be affirmed. For similar state court rulings see Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones, 60 So.2d 396 (Fla.1952); Treasure State Industries, Inc., v. Leigland, 151 Mont. 288, 443 P.2d 22 (1968).