Summary Judgment Denial Appeal In South Dakota

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we have often stated, we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists. Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied. If there exists any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Dakota Cheese, Inc. v. Ford, 1999 SD 147, P15, 603 N.W.2d 73, 76 (quoting Campion v. Parkview Apartments, 1999 SD 10, P22, 588 N.W.2d 897, 902 (quoting Wildeboer v. South Dakota Junior Chamber of Comm., 1997 SD 33, P9, 561 N.W.2d 666, 668). Further, summary judgment should be granted "'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Julson v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 SD 43, P5, 562 N.W.2d 117, 119 (quoting Ford v. Moore, 1996 SD 112, P7, 552 N.W.2d 850, 852 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(c))). Finally, summary judgment will be affirmed "'only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided.'" Id. (quoting Ford, 1996 SD 112, P7, 552 N.W.2d at 852 (citing Bego v. Gordon, 407 N.W.2d 801, 804 (SD 1987))). We are also faced in this case whether SDCL 3-21-8 is unconstitutional. "There is a strong presumption that a statute is constitutional and the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional." Beals v. Pickerel Lake San. Dist., 1998 SD 42, P8, 578 N.W.2d 134, 135 (citing Kyllo v. Panzer, 535 N.W.2d 896, 898 (SD 1995) (citing Specht v. City of Sioux Falls, 526 N.W.2d 727, 729 (SD 1995))). The standard of review for summary judgment is well established and briefly is "'whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.'" Manuel v. Wilka, 2000 SD 61, P17, 610 N.W.2d 458, 462 (quoting Parmely v. Hildebrand, 1999 SD 157, P7, 603 N.W.2d 713, 715-16.