City of Onida v. Brandt & Meyer, 959 N.W.2d 297

Appellants owned two Labrador-mix dogs that had prior incidents (2018–2019) and on Feb. 6, 2020 the dogs attacked a neighbor’s small dog on the neighbor’s property; the neighbor’s dog later died from internal injuries and infection.
The Sully County Sheriff, who also enforced Onida’s ordinance, declared the dogs "vicious" on Feb. 12, 2020 and the City obtained a TRO placing the dogs in a kennel pending court order.
The City sought a declaratory judgment authorizing euthanasia under the municipal "vicious animal" ordinance or, alternatively, authorization for the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29 (statute governing dangerous animals).
The circuit court found Appellants violated SDCL 40-34-2 and the municipal ordinance (dogs were vicious and running at large) but held the City could not euthanize under the ordinance because no written vicious-animal notice was given before the fatal attack; the court instead authorized the Sheriff to dispose of the dogs under SDCL 7-12-29 and stayed the order pending appeal.
On appeal Appellants challenged (1) the City’s ability to pursue disposal under state law after ordinance relief was denied and (2) the circuit court’s authorization to dispose of the dogs without a Department of Health consultation required by SDCL 7-12-29.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City/Sheriff may proceed under SDCL 7-12-29 to dispose of dogs after the court denied euthanasia under the municipal ordinance	City: It pleaded alternative remedies; Sheriff has statutory authority countywide and may act within city limits under SDCL 7-12-29	Appellants: City used an improper “hybrid” process; the municipal ordinance should control and preclude state-law disposal once ordinance relief was denied	Court: State statute governs where conflict exists; Sheriff may proceed under SDCL 7-12-29 and his county authority is not limited by the municipal ordinance
Whether the court erred by authorizing disposal without consulting the Department of Health as required by SDCL 7-12-29 when an animal or pet was bitten	City: Consultation unnecessary here (no rabies/public-health concern; dogs vaccinated); failure to consult did not affect dangerousness finding	Appellants: Statute unambiguously requires Department of Health consultation when a human or pet is attacked/bit; omission invalidates disposal order	Court: Statute requires consultation in such cases, but the omission was harmless error (no public-health issue, parties stipulated vaccinations, no prejudice), so disposal order affirmed

Atkinson v. City of Pierre, 706 N.W.2d 791 (S.D. 2005) (ordinance interpretation reviewed de novo)
City of Marion v. Schoenwald, 631 N.W.2d 213 (S.D. 2001) (municipal authority to enact ordinances under state law)
City of Pierre v. Blackwell, 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001) (municipal regulation of dangerous animals and owner-knowledge principles)
Rantapaa v. Black Hills Chair Lift Co., 633 N.W.2d 196 (S.D. 2001) (ordinances conflicting with state law are invalid)
Snow Land, Inc. v. City of Brookings, 282 N.W.2d 607 (S.D. 1979) (conflict exists when ordinance and statute are irreconcilable)
Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 143 N.W.2d 813 (Minn. 1966) (principles on ordinance/statute conflict)
Olson v. Butte Cnty. Comm’n, 925 N.W.2d 463 (S.D. 2019) (court will not add language to statute that is not there)
State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Clark, 798 N.W.2d 160 (S.D. 2011) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Zoss v. Schaefers, 598 N.W.2d 550 (S.D. 1999) (plain-meaning rule in statutory construction)
Voorhees Cattle Co. v. Dakota Feeding Co., 868 N.W.2d 399 (S.D. 2015) (discussion of harmless-error standard)
Schoon v. Looby, 670 N.W.2d 885 (S.D. 2003) (harmless error test)