Court Opinion

ID: 9690851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:48:39.595102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:05.400217
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
[¶ 35.] I agree with the holding of this case:
Nelson’s declaratory judgment action against the State of South Dakota was not barred by sovereign immunity and Nelson was entitled to a declaration concerning the applicability of the excise tax to motor vehicles returned or repossessed before installment sale contracts were completed.
This holding is completely within the power of courts to provide declaratory relief as provided in 1925 by the South Dakota Legislature in SDCL 21-24-1.17
[¶ 36.] I challenge the implication in paragraphs 13 and 14 that a Department’s declaratory process could be intended to be exclusive, mandated, or required as the sole means of relief for all the reasons stated herein.
[¶ 37.] In addition, we should overrule Pennington County rather than simply “limit its reach” because, as I stated in my dissent therein, it was “inconsistent and ... wrong” on the issue of jurisdiction. Id. at 134.

. SDCL 21-24-1 provides:
Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a de-
claratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.
(emphasis added).