972 N.W.2d 136
S.D.2022Background
- Preston Miles owned the parcel where Arrow Farms planned a farrow‑to‑finish swine CAFO and was the proposed manager; Arrow Farms applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the Spink County Board of Adjustment.
- The five‑member Board (all county commissioners) held two public hearings (April and December 2018); votes were split and, because approval needed a 4/5 vote, the CUP was denied after the December hearing.
- Miles petitioned for a writ of certiorari in circuit court, alleging the Board’s decision was arbitrary and that three members were biased or had an unacceptable risk of bias; Miles deposed Board members pre‑hearing and sought to admit the depositions or call live testimony at the certiorari hearing.
- The circuit court excluded the depositions as testimony about quasi‑judicial decisionmaking and declined to allow additional live testimony, after reviewing deposition excerpts in briefs; it found no disqualifying bias and concluded the Board regularly pursued its authority.
- On appeal the Supreme Court reviewed (1) whether the court abused its discretion by refusing live testimony and (2) whether the Board violated Miles’s due process/right to a fair tribunal; the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court abused discretion by excluding depositions and refusing live testimony at certiorari hearing | Miles: live testimony (and depositions) were necessary to resolve discrepancies and show bias; SDCL 11‑2‑64 permits taking evidence when necessary | Board: court has discretion under SDCL 11‑2‑64 and already considered depositions in briefs; additional testimony not necessary | Court did not abuse discretion: Miles had deposed members; court reasonably concluded further live testimony unnecessary and within judicial discretion |
| Whether Board members’ alleged bias or risk of bias violated due process (requiring disqualification) | Miles: Jeff, Dave, Suzanne were biased or at unacceptable risk of bias (personal dislike, questioning of sheriff/State’s Attorney, patronage of Suzanne’s bar, prehearing statements) | Board: contacts with constituents, friendships, or expressions about presenters were attenuated and did not demonstrate unconstitutional risk of bias; even if one vote disqualified, outcome unchanged | No due process violation under Caperton/Holborn standard: evidence was speculative/attenuated; no demonstrated serious risk of actual bias; circuit court properly found no disqualifying bias |
| Whether Board acted arbitrarily or failed to regularly pursue its authority by relying on public opposition rather than ordinance standards | Miles: Board ignored ordinance criteria and held permit ‘‘hostage’’ to public opposition/odors | Board: review on certiorari is limited; Board considered ordinance factors (setbacks, separation, odors, economic impacts) and weighed public input as part of its discretionary judgment | Board regularly pursued its authority: it considered relevant factors and public concerns; certiorari review does not reweigh merits, so denial stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (Due Process disqualification standard — recusal required where objective, reasonable probability of actual bias exists)
- Holborn v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 955 N.W.2d 363 (S.D. 2021) (applies Caperton to quasi‑judicial decisionmakers; disqualification standard is extremely high)
- Adolph v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 891 N.W.2d 377 (S.D. 2017) (questioning propriety of deposing quasi‑judicial decisionmakers)
- Grant Cnty. Concerned Citizens v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 866 N.W.2d 149 (S.D. 2015) (circuit court has discretion under SDCL 11‑2‑64 to admit evidence; review of such rulings is for abuse of discretion)
- Armstrong v. Turner Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 772 N.W.2d 643 (S.D. 2009) (board member bias can taint decision where influence is shown)
- Hanig v. City of Winner, 692 N.W.2d 202 (S.D. 2005) (conflict/disqualification analysis for local officials voting on licenses — facts distinguishable)
- Goos RV Ctr. v. Minnehaha Cnty. Comm’n, 764 N.W.2d 704 (S.D. 2009) (discusses standards and scope of review for CUP challenges)