Daily v. City of Sioux Falls, 802 N.W.2d 905

Over two years, City issued Daily four citations for a concrete driveway extension; hearings were held only on the final two.
Extension encroached into right-of-way and near a fire hydrant; Daily sought a variance but was denied by the Board of Adjustment.
Citations 1313 and 1379 issued Sept. 2006; posting and service issues discussed; Daily challenged selective enforcement.
Hearing on 2545 and 2546 occurred in 2008 with an examiner hired by the City Attorney; burden and evidence issues arose.
Trial court held the City’s administrative appeals process violated Daily’s procedural due process and equal protection; the City appealed.
Supreme Court affirmed, holding the City deprived Daily of meaningful judicial review and due process in its administrative framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the City’s administrative appeals process violate due process?	Daily argues process was unfair and biased against him.	City contends process complies with ordinances and provides review.	Yes; process violated Daily’s procedural due process rights.
Was burden of proof properly allocated in the administrative hearings?	Daily asserts City bears burden to prove violations; citizen not to prove innocence.	City maintains appellant bears burden at hearings.	Burden must be on the City; improper shift violated due process.
Does issuing multiple citations for a single continuing violation violate due process?	Daily contends multiple penalties for same ongoing violation are unfair.	City argues continuing violations justify separate citations under code.	Considered but held as part of broader due process analysis; not dispositive alone.
Did the hearing process apply rules of evidence fairly?	Daily claims evidence rules were inconsistently applied to him.	City argues technical rules of evidence are not mandatory in administrative hearings.	No; inconsistently applying evidence rules violated Daily’s due process rights.
Did the City's recordkeeping impede meaningful judicial review?	Daily argues the record was incomplete and disorganized, hindering review.	City argues partial recording suffices for review.	Recordkeeping deficiency considered in due process analysis; not alone decisive.

Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (property interests and due process defined; entitlement standards)
Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 1999) (due process in administrative contexts; constitutional safeguards)
Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employees; property interest; notice and hearing requirements)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (bias and impartial adjudicator; due process in administrative proceedings)
City of Pierre v. Blackwell, 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001) (independent adjudicator and proper burden of proof at hearings)
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1965) (burden of proof; due process in civil proceedings; proof allocation matters)