959 N.W.2d 55
S.D.2021Background
- Patterson sued to enjoin Plowboy from keeping two gates erected across a section-line highway adjacent to their properties, arguing the gates were unlawful obstructions under SDCL 31-25-1.1.
- SDCL 31-25-1.1 permits fencing across an "unimproved" section line only if it is "not commonly used as a public right-of-way" and "never altered from its natural state" to facilitate vehicular travel.
- Patterson moved for partial summary judgment, submitting evidence (photos, affidavit, township meeting notes) that the section line had a culvert, had been graded/grav elled, and was used by him and others.
- Plowboy admitted placing a culvert (Patterson did), adding a limited amount of gravel, and installing unlocked gates for livestock, and disputed that those changes amounted to an improvement or that the road was commonly used.
- The circuit court granted Patterson partial summary judgment, finding the section line had been altered (culvert/gravel) and thus was not "unimproved," ordered removal of the gates within twenty days, but did not enter a Rule 54(b) certification.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the partial summary judgment on the unimproved/alteration issue, vacated the immediate-removal order because the court failed to certify finality under SDCL 15-6-54(b), and remanded for further proceedings (including possible certification or stay).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court erred by granting partial summary judgment that the section line is not "unimproved" under SDCL 31-25-1.1 | Patterson: undisputed evidence (culvert, grading, gravel, public use) shows the section line was altered and commonly used, so gates are unlawful | Plowboy: alterations are minimal (old culvert, limited gravel, tire tracks) and do not amount to an improvement; factual disputes exist | Affirmed: undisputed culvert and gravel constitute intentional alterations to facilitate vehicular travel; court correctly found the line was not unimproved so SDCL 31-25-1.1 did not authorize the gates |
| Whether the court's order requiring gate removal was immediately enforceable absent SDCL 15-6-54(b) certification | Patterson: order should be enforced (asked for removal) | Plowboy: order not final; Rule 54(b) certification required before immediate enforcement | Reversed as to enforcement: the removal order vacated because the circuit court did not make the express determination required by Rule 54(b); remanded for further proceedings (certify as final or stay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Knecht v. Evridge, 940 N.W.2d 318 (S.D. 2020) (de novo review and summary judgment standard)
- Sacred Heart Health Servs., Inc. v. Yankton Cnty., 951 N.W.2d 544 (S.D. 2020) (summary judgment principles and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- State v. Tracy, 539 N.W.2d 327 (S.D. 1995) (an "improved" section line involves intentional enhancements—e.g., culverts, grading, gravel—that permit travel where it was not previously possible)
- Douville v. Christensen, 641 N.W.2d 651 (S.D. 2002) (section lines are public highways that cannot be obstructed absent legal authority)
- Reis v. Miller, 550 N.W.2d 78 (S.D. 1996) (statutes defining public highways construed liberally in favor of public access)
- Peters v. (unnamed), 334 N.W.2d 217 (S.D. 1983) (earlier, broader alteration standard)
- Smith v. Sponheim, 399 N.W.2d 899 (S.D. 1987) (mere travel does not constitute an improvement)
- Frawley Ranches, Inc. v. Lasher, 270 N.W.2d 366 (S.D. 1978) (recognition that gates may be statutorily permitted in grazing areas)
- Black Hills Novelty Co., Inc. v. S.D. Comm’n on Gaming, 520 N.W.2d 70 (S.D. 1994) (all conjunctive statutory elements must be satisfied)