Did the trial court err in denying Yankton Countys motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment?
[8.] Whether the trial court’s ruling on Yankton County’s pretrial motions is reviewed as a denial of a motion to dismiss or as a denial of a motion for summary judgment, the standards are the same. As recently indicated in Hagemann v. NJS Engineering, Inc., 2001 SD 102, 4, 632 NW2d 840, 842: This Court’s standard of review of a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is the same standard as that which is applied upon review of a motion [for] summary judgment “is the pleader entitled to judgment as a matter of law?” Therefore, we review all facts most [favorably] to the [nonmoving] party. We continue to review questions of law, particularly issues of statutory construction, de novo. (citations omitted). [9.] Yankton County argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment because an appeal of the County Commission’s action submitting the initiated ordinance for a public vote was Heine’s exclusive statutory remedy. In support of its
