Rupert v. City of Rapid City
2013 SD 13
| S.D. | 2013Background
- Rupert property in Rapid City; City applied deicer to adjacent streets causing runoff and damage to 42 pine trees.
- Rupert suit (2009) asserted inverse condemnation, negligence, and trespass; damages sought for ornamental and environmental loss.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on some claims and proceeded to trial for just compensation,” ultimately awarding $126,530.
- Court held that damages could be measured using a method other than diminution in market value, and later reversed on damages measure.
- Court ultimately remanded for new trial on damages while affirming inverse condemnation liability and denying attorney fees under SDCL 21-35-23, and denied relief on negligence/trespass claims as tied to sovereign immunity.
- Ruperts appealed, City cross-appealed, and the Supreme Court issued a partial affirmance/reversal/remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inverse condemnation was proven | Rupert evidence showed unique damage and direct action by City | City argued no direct and substantial action and no peculiar injury | Yes; inverse condemnation established |
| Appropriate damages measure | Temporary vs permanent damage; restoration costs permissible | Diminution in value or restoration costs; measure should reflect either theory | Measuring damages as temporary vs permanent is for the jury; remanded for proper measure consistent with the opinion |
| Attorney fees under SDCL 21-35-23 | Fees may be awarded if statute allows; inverse condemnation case included | SDCL 21-35-23 not expressly applicable to inverse condemnation | No; statute does not expressly authorize in inverse condemnation |
| Sovereign immunity and negligence/trespass claims | Constitutional taking damages exclude tort claims; exclusive remedy | Sovereign immunity may bar tort claims if no taking/damaging | Limited to just compensation under Article VI, §13; denial of negligence/trespass affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Brookings v. Mills, 412 N.W.2d 497 (S.D. 1987) (inverse condemnation elements; direct and substantial action in de facto taking context)
- Searle v. City of Lead, 10 S.D. 312 (S.D. 1897) (inverse condemnation; damages may accompany taking or damaging without trespass needed)
- Krier v. Dell Rapids Township, 2006 S.D. 10 (S.D. 2006) (consequential damages must be peculiar to the land and not offsetting public common injury)
- Hurley v. State (Hurley II), 82 S.D. 156 (S.D. 1966) (established that inverse condemnation remedy exists; sovereign immunity context)
- State Highway Comm’n v. Hayes Estate, 82 S.D. 27 (S.D. 1966) (measure of damages in condemnation cases; diminution in market value principle)