Adrian v. Vonk, 2011 S.D. 84

Western SD ranchers allege prairie dog incursions from public lands cause income loss, expenses, and property damage.
Plaintiffs sue SDGFP, SD Department of Agriculture, and secretaries, arguing statutory duties to control prairie dogs were breached.
Statutes cited include SDCL 41-11-15, 34A-8-7, and 40-36-3.1; collective theory that failure to act constitutes a nuisance under SDCL 34A-8A-5.
Circuit Judge Fuller granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding duties and waivers of sovereign immunity; court then ordered proceedings on damages.
On reassignment, Judge Kern granted summary judgment for State, vacating Fuller’s decision, and dismissed with prejudice; plaintiffs appeal.
Issue for SD Supreme Court: whether sovereign immunity is waived and whether acts are discretionary, as well as authority to reconsider prior ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Judge Kern authorized to reconsider Fuller's ruling and vacate it?	Plaintiffs asserted Kern had authority as reconsideration of a final decision was improper.	State argued Kern could reconsider under her authority over the case.	Authority exists; decision not essential to reach holding.
Does sovereign immunity bar plaintiffs' claims for failure to manage prairie dogs?	Statutes impose duties enabling a nuisance claim, implying waiver of immunity.	No express waiver; acts are discretionary, preserving immunity.	Sovereign immunity not waived; acts are discretionary.
Do the cited statutes expressly authorize suit against the State for prairie dog management?	Statutes create nuisance remedies and management duties implying a right to sue.	No express language permitting suit against the State; immunity remains.	No express waiver; no right to sue under these statutes.
Are the challenged statutory duties ministerial or discretionary for sovereign-immunity analysis?	Duties are ministerial because they mandate controlling prairie dogs.	Duties are discretionary, involving policy judgments and resources.	Actions are discretionary; immunity applies.

Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D. 1979) (express waiver required; constitutional directive to sue state)
Pourier v. S.D. Dept. of Rev. & Reg., 778 N.W.2d 602 (S.D. 2010) (express waiver necessary to sue state; specific statutory language governs)
Hanson v. S.D. Dept. of Transp., 584 N.W.2d 881 (S.D. 1998) (ministerial versus discretionary acts; sovereign immunity analysis)
Bickner v. Raymond Twp., 747 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 2008) (summary judgment and de novo standard; statutory questions of law)