Deno v. Oveson

307 N.W.2d 862, 1981 S.D. LEXIS 307
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 8, 1981
Docket13239
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 307 N.W.2d 862 (Deno v. Oveson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deno v. Oveson, 307 N.W.2d 862, 1981 S.D. LEXIS 307 (S.D. 1981).

Opinion

DUNN, Justice.

This is an appeal from the granting of a summary judgment that dismissed Julius Ray Deno’s (appellant) complaint on the merits with prejudice. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant initiated a small claims action for libel against the Superintendent of the Department of Public Works for the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Arnold L. Ove-son (appellee). This action was based on the placement of certain reports in appellant’s personnel file by appellee. These reports stated various grounds and actions that eventually resulted in the termination of appellant’s employment with the Public Works Department. Appellee moved the *863 action to circuit court for a trial by jury. Appellant then filed an amended complaint, which was dismissed on the merits with prejudice by way of a summary judgment.

In light of the fact that libel is excluded from the jurisdiction of small claims court, SDCL 15-39-1, appellant’s action was commenced, if commenced at all, in circuit court by his amended complaint. We hold, however, that appellant never effectively commenced such an action, because a summons was never issued, filed, or served.

While the service can be waived by appearance where a summons has been actually issued and later filed, the failure to issue, file, or serve a summons, as in this case, deprives the court of jurisdiction. Black v. Circuit Court of Eighth Judicial Circuit, 78 S.D. 302, 101 N.W.2d 520 (I960); Ayers, Weatherwax & Reid Co. v. Sund-back, 5 S.D. 31, 58 N.W. 4 (1894); SDCL 15-2-30, 15-2-31, 15-6-3, and 15-6-5(d). We conclude by noting that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time and even by the reviewing court’s own motion. Medley v. Salvation Army, Rapid City Corps, 267 N.W.2d 201 (S.D.1978).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Interest of N.K., Jr. and S.K.
2024 S.D. 63 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2024)
Elliott v. Board of County Commissioners
2005 SD 92 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2005)
Decker Ex Rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc.
1999 SD 62 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
Risse v. Meeks
1998 SD 112 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Ripple v. Wold
1998 SD 69 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Devitt v. Hayes
1996 SD 71 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1996)
In Re the Alleged Mental Illness of Gillespi
397 N.W.2d 476 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1986)
Williams Insurance of Pierre v. Bear Butte Farms Partnership
392 N.W.2d 831 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1986)
Pearson v. Pearson
312 N.W.2d 34 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
307 N.W.2d 862, 1981 S.D. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deno-v-oveson-sd-1981.