Court Opinion

ID: 9580829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:21.113466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:33.351332
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that:
1. The city is a proper party in this action,
2. There is a prescriptive easement for the drain tile,
3. Miiller wrongfully destroyed the drain tile, and
4. The county is entitled to repair or replace the drain tile to the northern slough,
but, I do not agree on the status of this record, that an injunction should issue to prevent the county from draining the northern slough into the southern slough. “[T]he right to an injunction must be established with reasonable certainty.” Gross v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 361 N.W.2d 259, 265 (S.D.1985). If the county’s actions were necessary to remedy or undo the harm caused by Miiller’s wrongfully breaking the drain tile, no injunction should issue. The record in this respect is simply undeveloped and inadequate, making the right to an injunction not reasonably certain. A permanent injunction should issue only when a party has shown that he would “be injured or deprived of some lawful right without the aid of such injunction[.]” Id. (quoting State ex rel. Gray v. Olsen, 30 S.D. 57, 71, 137 N.W. 561, 562 (1912)).
Here, the permanent injunction would not even come into existence until after the county repaired or replaced the drain tile to the northern slough. As a result, there is no urgent need for the injunction. In addition, Miiller has not clearly established that he has a lawful right to prevent the county from draining the northern slough into the southern slough.
Therefore, I would reverse and remand to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the county’s actions were justified to remedy the harm caused by Miiller’s wrongful conduct.