Understanding the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in South Dakota

“By statute, a temporary injunction may be either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. SDCL 21-8-1.” (Stoebner v. Konrad, 914 N.W.2d 590, 593 n.2 [S.D. 2018].)

“Given the limited purpose of a preliminary injunction and the haste that is often necessary to preserve the status quo of the parties, a preliminary injunction hearing involves less formal procedures and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” (Hansen v. Alberts, 434 N.W.2d 768, 770 [S.D. 1989] citing University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 [1981].)

Requirements for a Preliminary Injunction

“Thus, a party is not normally required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing and the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court relative to a preliminary injunction will not be binding at the trial on the merits.” (Id.) “It follows that it is generally inappropriate for a court to give a final judgment on the merits at the preliminary injunction stage.” (Id.)

“The foregoing principles have been recognized in part by this court in Adams Co. v. Buchanan, 42 S.D. 548, 176 N.W. 512, 513 (1920), which states:

“[W]here, as in this case, the sole relief sought in the action is injunctional and the pendente lite injunction asked for is, as it must be, based upon the very grounds upon which the permanent injunction is sought, the decision, upon the pendent lite injunction, while not final and res judicata as to the ultimate rights of the parties, should usually be a virtual determination as to what the final judgment would be under the same facts.” (Hansen v. Alberts, 434 N.W.2d 768, 770 [S.D. 1989] quoting Adams Co. v. Buchanan, 42 S.D. 548, 176 N.W. 512, 513 [1920];See also, Olson v. Cass, 349 N.W.2d 435, 438 [S.D. 1984].)

“This statement makes clear that an unfavorable determination on an application for a preliminary injunction should not generally serve to bar a party from marshalling additional evidence and proving facts sufficient to entitle him to relief at a trial on the merits.” (Id.)

Discretion of the Court in Issuing a Preliminary Injunction

“The granting of injunctional relief rests in the sound discretion of the court, [Hofer v. Bridgewater Ind. Sch. Dist.,76 S.D. 483, 81 N.W.2d 300 (1957)], and ‘should only be granted where, under the facts proven, it appears reasonably certain that the granting thereof will protect the party seeking it from some injury that would result in his damage.’” (Olson v. Cass, 349 N.W.2d 435, 437 [S.D. 1984] quoting Alsager v. Peterson, 31 S.D. 452, 456, 141 N.W. 391, 392 [1913].) “It is the duty of the court to consider its effect upon all parties in interest and to issue only in case it is necessary to protect a substantial right.” (Id., internal citations omitted.)

Current as of March 01, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.