Court Opinion

ID: 9515169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:22.364878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:25.808182
License: Public Domain

*330MEIERHENRY, Justice
(concurring).
[¶ 24.] I concur with the majority opinion on both issues. The legislature has authorized a municipality to operate an on-sale liquor establishment. It has not authorized a municipality to operate a restaurant. Whether, or -to what extent, cities should be able to serve meals in conjunction with selling liquor is a policy decision best left to the legislature.
[¶ 25.] I also would affirm the trial court's decision in denying the City’s belated defense of sovereign immunity. In addition to the defense being untimely, operating a bar is not a'governmental activity subject to the defense of sovereign immunity. We have consistently held that sovereign immunity does not apply to a business enterprise run by the government. See Aune v. B-Y Water District, 464 N.W.2d 1, 2-5 (S.D.1990); L.R. Foy Const. Co., Inc. v. South Dakota State Cement Plant Com’n, 399 N.W.2d 340, 346-49 (S.D.1987); Oien v. City of Sioux Falls, 393 N.W.2d 286, 290-91 (S.D.1986). •