Court Opinion

ID: 9656247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:44:23.832753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:30.719431
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
Although I fully concur in the substantive treatment of the issues herein, I can *425only vote to concur in result due to the citation of Moulton v. State, 363 N.W.2d 405 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting). In said dissent, I assailed this Court’s statutory interpretation. Rather, for the general rule on statutory construction and interpretation, I would cite Oahe Conservancy Subdistrict v. Janklow, 308 N.W.2d 559 (S.D.1981); and Wood v. Waggoner, 67 S.D. 365, 293 N.W. 188 (1940). When arriving at the intention of the legislature, it is presumed that the words of the legislature have been used to convey their ordinary, popular meaning, unless the context or the apparent intention of the legislature justifies any departure from the ordinary meaning. Oahe; Wood.