“The SBA is proud to acknowledge the efforts of Clint Sargent with this year’s Volunteer Service Award,” said Jason Krause, the 2011–2012 president of the Student Bar Association (SBA).

The Volunteer Service Award recognizes an individual who has provided personal time and expertise to the various student organizations at the School of Law. The services provided include speaking on topics of importance to law students and the legal profession to classes, events, informational programs, as well as serving as judges and advisors for student competitions.

 “The law school is fortunate for the valuable assistance provided by Clint Sargent, who is among those frequently turn their attention from their daily and important tasks to help law students,” said Dean Tom Geu. “Clint is truly a leader lawyer in South Dakota and the Law School is grateful to him as a caring and sharing professional for helping enhances and enrich the students’ education.” 

Spam doesn’t only affect large companies. A 5-employee company will lose $16,180.40 and 8.125 work days of productivity per year because of spam. A 25-employee company will lose $80,902.00 and 40.62 work days per year directly attributable to spam.

The average wage in South Dakota amounts to $15.78 per hour. When the cost of spam is considered along with the 401,521 employed South Dakotans (using the most recent census data), the direct cost of spam in South Dakota alone is $1,299,354,077.68. This amount does not even consider IT or software costs.

The sending of unsolicited commercial email advertisements is regulated by the South Dakota Codified Laws. Specifically, those sending these spam emails are required to follow strict requirements when sending messages to individuals with whom there is no previous business relationship.

Click here to read more about South Dakota’s spam laws.

If you have questions about how Meierhenry Sargent’s attorneys can help you or your business combat your spam problem, call us at 336‑3075 or contact us.

The College’s objectives are to promote high standards of professional and ethical responsibility in the practice of bond law; to seek to improve bond law and practice; to make available to the bar and to the public authoritative educational materials in the field of bond law; to speak upon matters of interest and importance to bond law and practice before legislative, administrative and regulatory bodies, and elsewhere; to promote the continuing education of attorneys on issues affecting bond to provide forums for attorneys practicing bond law to meet and exchange ideas and professional experience; and to cooperate and consult with national, state and local bar organizations, government agencies, issuer organizations, and other groups which have an interest in bond law and practice, including but not limited to the National Association of Bond Lawyers.

First, the property must receive a “special benefit” from the improvement above and beyond the benefit to the public at large. Also, the benefit to land must be actual, physical, and material; and not merely speculative.

Second, the amount of the assessment must bear some relation to the value of the benefit received. The United States Supreme Court has held that an assessment which is in “substantial excess” of the special benefit received by the landowner is an unconstitutional taking of private property for public use under the the U.S. and South Dakota Constitutions.

The governmental entity levying the special assessment should carry out some investigation to estimate the value of the benefit of an improvement. Statutes in South Dakota allow for assessments based upon the amount of property abutting the improvements. However, the requirements above still apply, and if the simple calculations provided by statute would result in an unconstitutional assessment, the assessment may still be invalid.

If you have questions about an assessment Contact Us.

The South Dakota voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1986 to allow video lottery. As part of that amendment, the constitution requires that video lottery be regulated by the State of South Dakota.  Meierhenry Sargent attorneys Bill Blewett and Mark Meierhenry argued that the City’s attempt to control the permissible locations for new video lottery businesses was an unconstitutional attempt by the City to regulate video lottery. Both the Circuit Court and Supreme Court agreed that the City exceeded its authority and struck down the ordinance.

Law v. City of Sioux Falls, 2011 SD 63

Q: If I am stopped for DUI, do I have to perform the field sobriety tests?

A: No. A person can always refuse to participate in law enforcement’s field sobriety tests. If you do refuse, the Government can tell the jury at your trial that you refused to perform the tests. A person can also refuse to take a blood test if they have not twice been convicted of DUI in the last ten years. But again, the Government can inform the jury of your refusal. Also, if you refuse to take a blood test, your driver’s license will be revoked for one year even if you are found not guilty of DUI.
 

Clint Sargent
Criminal Trial Lawyer

A: Yes. A policeman’s failure to read you “your rights” (called Miranda warnings) does not affect the legality of your arrest. The purpose of Miranda warnings is to inform you that you have the right to remain silent and the right to talk to a lawyer before answering questions. An officer is supposed to read you these rights prior to asking you any questions. If he does not, anything you say to the officer is inadmissible at trial and may not be used against you. However, the Government may still use other evidence and witnesses to convict you of the crime charged.

The on-going nature of post-issuance compliance requirements applicable to tax-advantaged bonds requires issuers to actively monitor compliance throughout the entire period their bonds remain outstanding. This due diligence will significantly improve the issuer’s ability to identify noncompliance and prevent violations from occurring, or timely correct identified violations (when prevention is not possible), to ensure the continued tax-advantaged status of the bonds.

Written Procedures for Monitoring Compliance

Issuers should adopt written procedures, applicable to all bond issues, which go beyond reliance on tax certificates included in bond documents provided at closing. Sole reliance on the closing bond documents may result in procedures insufficiently detailed or not incorporated into an issuer’s operations. Written procedures should contain certain key characteristics, including making provision for:

• Due diligence review at regular intervals;
• Identifying the official or employee responsible for review;
• Training of the responsible official/employee;
• Retention of adequate records to substantiate compliance (e.g., records relating to expenditure of proceeds);
• Procedures reasonably expected to timely identify noncompliance; and
• Procedures ensuring that the issuer will take steps to timely correct noncompliance.

The goal of establishing and following written procedures is to identify and resolve noncompliance, on a timely basis, to preserve the preferential status of tax-advantaged bonds. Generally, an issuer that has established and followed comprehensive written procedures to promote post-issuance compliance is less likely, than an issuer that does not have such procedures, to violate the federal tax requirements related to its bonds.