951 N.W.2d 284
S.D.2020Background
- Steve and Ethan Schmeichel applied for a conditional-use permit to build and operate a large CAFO; the Turner County Board of Adjustment approved the permit after a hearing where two board members were disqualified from voting and one abstained.
- Nearby landowners Jeffrey Powers and Vicky Urban-Reasonover petitioned for certiorari under SDCL 11-2-61, alleging the CAFO would cause pollution, odor, noise, and property-value loss and claiming procedural defects in the Board’s process.
- At summary-judgment briefing Urban-Reasonover submitted expert reports: an appraiser estimating a $48,000 loss in her property value and an odor model predicting complaint-triggering odors 72.4% of days.
- The circuit court initially found the petitioners had not shown they were "persons aggrieved" and gave them time to supplement evidence; after supplemental submissions the court granted summary judgment for the Schmeichels, holding the petitioners lacked a unique injury compared to other county residents.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the petitioners’ proximity plus expert evidence sufficed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Urban-Reasonover suffered a personal and pecuniary injury distinct from general taxpayers; the court also concluded the circuit court improperly weighed evidence and relied on the judge’s personal knowledge instead of treating expert evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under SDCL 11-2-61 — "person aggrieved" requirement | Urban-Reasonover is a person aggrieved: 3/4 mile proximity plus expert proof of devaluation and frequent odor events show a personal, pecuniary injury distinct from taxpayers generally | Harm (odor, noise, value loss) is shared by county residents near CAFO; not uniquely hers | Reversed: expert reports + proximity raise genuine dispute that Urban-Reasonover suffered a personal and pecuniary loss not shared by taxpayers in general; remand for proceedings |
| Applicability and scope of Cable (person aggrieved standard) | Cable is distinguishable; SDCL 11-2-61 language allows standing with injury distinct from taxpayers generally, not an "ultra-unique" standard | Cable requires proof that injury is unique compared to others living near the project | Court clarified Cable applies but does not demand an impossibly unique injury among neighbors; proximity combined with specific evidence can suffice |
| Treatment of expert evidence / gatekeeping (Daubert) at summary judgment | Circuit court improperly rejected experts and weighed evidence, relying on judge’s personal knowledge rather than viewing evidence favorably to petitioners; no formal Daubert motion was filed | Court acted within gatekeeper role to find experts unreliable | Court faulted the circuit court for weighing evidence at summary judgment and for rejecting experts without a proper Daubert process; summary-judgment standards require viewing evidence most favorably to nonmovant |
| Effect of Right-to-Farm covenant on standing | Covenant does not bar showing an injury beyond ordinary inconveniences; petitioners produced evidence of additional, quantifiable harm | Covenant notifies residents of typical nuisances and undercuts claim of a personal, unique injury | Covenant did not negate petitioners’ proffered expert evidence; it was insufficient alone to defeat standing at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cable v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 769 N.W.2d 817 (S.D. 2009) (interprets "person aggrieved" as requiring a personal, pecuniary loss distinct from taxpayers generally)
- Abata v. Pennington Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 931 N.W.2d 714 (S.D. 2019) (clarifies standing analysis for declaratory-judgment actions under different statutory language)
- Croell Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Pennington Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 905 N.W.2d 344 (S.D. 2017) (distinguishes "affected" language from "person aggrieved" for standing)
- Huber v. Hanson Cnty. Planning Comm’n, 936 N.W.2d 565 (S.D. 2019) (holding pleadings alleging proximate odor and manure control issues were sufficient at pleading stage for SDCL 11-2-61)
- Barnum v. Ewing, 220 N.W. 135 (S.D. 1928) (historic formulation of "person aggrieved" as personal and pecuniary loss not shared by taxpayers generally)
- Adolph v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 891 N.W.2d 377 (S.D. 2017) (discusses board discretion to impose or not impose increased setbacks)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal standard for admissibility and court's gatekeeping role for expert testimony)