State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Clark, 2011 SD 20

DOT condemned Clark's land on West 12th Street via quick-take; final offer before trial was $277,550; jury awarded $320,000 for just compensation; prejudgment interest of $21,074.91 was added; total award to Clark was $341,074.91; SDCL 21-35-23 allows attorney fees and expert fees if final judgment exceeds final offer by 20% and exceeds $700; trial court included prejudgment interest in the comparison to the final offer; DOT appeals arguing prejudgment interest should not be included in the compensation comparison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudgment interest is included in the ‘compensation’ for SDCL 21-35-23	Clark: prejudgment interest is part of compensation under the statute.	DOT: prejudgment interest is not part of compensation for the comparison.	Yes; prejudgment interest must be included in the compensation amount for the 20% comparison.
What constitutes the 'final judgment' and 'compensation' under SDCL 21-35-23	Clark: plain language includes prejudgment interest as part of final judgment compensation.	DOT: compensation refers to jury verdict; interest is decided separately.	The phrase ‘awarded to the defendant by final judgment’ includes prejudgment interest in the comparison.

City of Sioux Falls v. Kelley, 513 N.W.2d 97 (S.D. 1994) (purpose of 21-35-23 to discourage unfair offers; includes interest when comparing to final offer)
City of Sioux Falls v. Johnson (Johnson III), 670 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2003) (SDCL 21-35-23 overview; ‘compensation’ term interpreted in context)
State v. Miranda, 776 N.W.2d 77 (S.D. 2009) (statutory interpretation guidance for plain language analysis)
State Hwy. Comm’n v. Am. Mem. Parks, 144 N.W.2d 25 (S.D. 1966) (definition of ‘just compensation’ and market value context)
Border States Paving v. Dept. of Revenue, 437 N.W.2d 872 (S.D. 1989) (statutory interpretation by examining related provisions)