Alto Township v. Mendenhall, 2011 SD 54

Mendenhalls own ranch in Sections 16 and 17 of Alto Township, Roberts County; a section-line highway lies between the sections.
Historically, they fence the highway in late fall/winter with gates to join pastures; cattle guards and gates were installed.
Township sued for declaratory/injunctive relief to prevent fences across the highway and to require their removal.
Roberts County Board of Commissioners issued Resolution 09-41 authorizing fences with cattle guards and gates for public access.
Trial court held the highway an improved public road and found Mendenhalls in contempt for not meeting Resolution 09-41 width requirements.
Appellants installed two cattle guards totaling 16 feet width each with gates, then width dispute arose regarding compliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contempt finding was proper given ambiguity in the order.	Mendenhalls violated order by not meeting 16-foot width requirement.	Order ambiguity meant compliance could reasonably be understood as satisfied.	Contempt reversed; ambiguity invalidated the contempt finding.

Keller v. Keller, 2003 S.D. 36 (S.D. 2003) (clear, unambiguous terms required for contempt)
Harksen v. Peska, 630 N.W.2d 98 (S.D. 2001) (clarity of duties needed in contempt orders)
Muenster v. Muenster, 2009 S.D. 23 (S.D. 2009) (four elements of contempt including willfulness)
Douville v. Christensen, 641 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2002) (private citizens generally cannot obstruct improved section-line highways)
State v. Big Crow, 773 N.W.2d 810 (S.D. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of contempt)