Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 S.D. 570

199 N.W.2d 583

McDonald v. State

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1972

South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1972-07-24

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Actions for the following causes, or upon the following instruments, must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose, or the forfeiture was declared, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial: (1) For the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture imposed by statute .... (2) Against a public officer, or person specially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by him in virtue of his office, or against a person, who, by his command or his aid, shall do anything touching the duties of such officer[.]”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including SDDS, Inc. v. State, Hills Materials Co., Inc. v. Van Johnson

“a part of the cause of action arose in Pennington County, [and] the action was properly brought there under SDCL 15-5-2.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including SDDS, Inc. v. State

Applies SD 15 § 15-5-2

Relies on Cecil v. Superior Court · 7 Cal. App. 3d 929 - Lynch v. Superior Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1972-07-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2021

12 state decisions

40197219801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HANSON, Presiding Judge

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I would affirm.

¶3Our venue statute relating to actions against a public officer is flexible and transitory in nature. It provides in the alternative that such actions "must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose". SDCL 15-5-2.

¶4*578The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether or not plaintiff's employment by the State Highway Department in Pennington County was properly or legally terminated. Obviously, "some part of the cause of action" arose in Pennington County where plaintiff was employed and his dismissal took place. As the California Court characterized the effect of administrative action by a state official "It is where the shaft strikes him, not where it is drawn, that counts." Cecil v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County, 59 Cal.App.2d 793, 140 P.2d 125 and see Lynch v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.3d 929, 86 Cal.Rptr. 925 relating to the dismissal of a state employee.

¶5The injury to plaintiff occurred in Pennington County and he should not be compelled to travel to the seat of government to seek redress. Therefore, because of the permissive and transitory nature of our statute it is my opinion this proceeding could properly be venued in either Pennington or Hughes County. As it was instituted in Pennington County it should remain there for trial.

/86/sd/570 · .json · Public domain