Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court considered whether a circuit court could amend a final dispositional order with a new date to permit a timely appeal after an earlier appeal had been dismissed as untimely. The court held that the minor corrections in the amended order did not create a new final order or restart the appeal period, and it dismissed the appeal as untimely.
Holdings
- An amended final order does not restart the time for appeal when its revisions are immaterial and do not change matters of substance, resolve a genuine ambiguity, or disturb or revise legal rights and obligations that were finally settled by the prior judgment.
- A.W.'s third appeal was untimely because the amended dispositional order did not create a new final order or restart the period for appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether a circuit court may amend a final order with a new date to permit a new, timely notice of appeal after the Supreme Court has dismissed an earlier appeal as untimely.
- Whether the amendments to the dispositional order were substantive or resolved a genuine ambiguity so as to restart the time for appeal.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (15)
- People ex rel. B.H., 2011 S.D. 26, 799 N.W.2d 408(followed)
- Johnson v. Kusel, 298 N.W.2d 91 (S.D. 1980)(followed)
- W. States Land & Cattle Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 459 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 1990)(followed)
- State v. Phipps, 406 N.W.2d 146 (S.D. 1987)(followed)
- State v. Huftile, 367 N.W.2d 193 (S.D. 1985)(followed)
- Federal Trade Commission v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206 (1952)(followed)
- Matton Steamboat Co. v. Murphy, 319 U.S. 412 (1943)(followed)
- Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms, 2012 S.D. 20, 813 N.W.2d 122(followed)
- Interstate Printing Co. v. Department of Revenue, 459 N.W.2d 519 (Neb. 1990)(followed)
- In re A.S., 2000 S.D. 94, 614 N.W.2d 383(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…