UPDATE: Daily vs. Sioux Falls

by

The city has until July 1 when a 30 day right to appeal into State Supreme court kicks in.  They’re now represented by private council.  It’s a firm specializing in insurance litigation.  They’ve lost 2 lawsuits and are finding it hard to get/keep liability insurance.

Daily’s attorney has removed himself and the best appeals lawyer in the state has taken the case ‘Pro Bono’.  Mr. Dorothy still works as evidence assembler.  He rounded up new council from his contacts when he worked at the States Attorney’s Office in Pierre.  USD Law School is involved.  They’re doing ‘Pro Bono’ research.

It kinda sounds like if the city decides to appeal Caldwell’s decision they could be up shit creek without a paddle. Good thing they are raising the levees.

Posted in: 5th Amendment, Sioux Falls, US Constitution

6 Thoughts on “UPDATE: Daily vs. Sioux Falls”

  1. Ghost of Dude on June 22, 2010 at 2:54 pm said:

    Maybe instead of appealing, the city could pay their lawyers to revise the code so these things won’t happen in the future.

  2. Ghost of Dude on June 22, 2010 at 2:55 pm said:

    Oh, and since I may be going to law school next year, this case really interests me.

  3. Detroit Lewis on June 22, 2010 at 2:58 pm said:

    “Maybe instead of appealing, the city could pay their lawyers to revise the code so these things won’t happen in the future.”

    Agreed. If this goes to the SC it will fail and they will be FORCED to repeal Home Rule.

  4. Plaintiff Guy on June 23, 2010 at 8:01 am said:

    Here’s something intersesting on traffic camera. Cases are similar & above case is mentioned near end.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/south-dakota-court-rules-against-red-light-cameras/

  5. Plaintiff Guy on June 23, 2010 at 8:08 am said:

    I’ve blogged or e-mailed with others and visited with activists in Canon City CO.

    There’s a national movement against HOME RULE. Sioux Falls is advanced due to court cases. They could well become the poster child example.

    Boy, I’d not want to be mayor or council person quoted in a national article. If you’re associated with violating constitutional rights, tyranny, or facism you’re going to need a good home security system.

  6. Plaintiff Guy on June 23, 2010 at 10:59 am said:

    There doesn’t seem to be a way to recall the mayor.

    Code 2.07 allows the council to remove a member via judicial review (denied appeal). The mayor is a member that could be removed.

    Code Section 2.09 gives council power to investigate the mayor via lawful (constitutional not Home Rule) method.

    Code Section 2.13 gives council the power to add charter amendments. Provisions for mayor recall?

Post Navigation