Author Archives: Rita Pravecek

Grossenburg Implement’s sales team was recently awarded the Diamond Award with NDEco for achieving elite level of sales performance for 2021 sales.

John Dueck, CEO for NDEco, visited on March 2 and presented the Winner store sales team of this accomplishment. Here are some kind words from John.

“Congratulations to the whole Grossenburg sales team! We recognize the hard work you put into going out and making the sales. Based on the limited contact I have had with the owners and sales staff at Grossenburg, I have come to appreciate the great company you are all a part of. I have no doubt you are all proud to work for such a reputable and respected company.

We want to thank you for your commitment to the NDEco product line. We believe what sets Grossenburg aside from others is the commitment and unwavering support you have for all your customers. We appreciate all your business. NDEco will continue to provide a reliable product and stay strongly committed to our customers. I believe the best is yet to come as both companies grow and build on the strong business relationship that already exists. Again, congratulations on the successful year you had. We are looking forward to what the rest of this year will bring, and beyond.”

Grossenburg’s sales staff is a proud partner with NDEco and their product line fits well with ours. Grossenburg Implement’s commitment to to provide the best product at a reasonable price with the highest level of service matches perfectly with our current product lineup.

The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously ruled recently that the state can charge juveniles with DUI.

Justice Janine Kern wrote the opinion after appeals made in Pennington and Meade counties.

Three persons under the age of 18 were arrested and charged with DUI between 2018 and 2019.

In each case, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing they could only be charged under the zero tolerance DUI state statute governing juveniles and their cases could only be heard in juvenile court.

All of the dismissal requests were denied in magistrate court and then in circuit court.

The state submitted that the jurisdiction in magistrate court was proper since a DUI charge is a traffic offense “excluded from the delinquency statues and not listed in the definitions of a (children in need of supervision or CHINS).”

“Despite the appellants’ perceived disharmony among the different avenues that the state may take when charging underage drivers under the zero tolerance or DUI statutes, these arguments involved the wisdom of the legislature’s penal code, which are ‘questions of public policy, not appellate error,” Kern wrote.

She wrote that contrary to the claim that the overlapping statutes cause disharmony, the conclusion upon reading the statutes is that the legislature intended to  provide prosecutors with the option of charging juveniles under either statute.

Kern concluded that the appellants failed to support their arguments that the language of the statutes prevents the state from charging them in magistrate court.

“The statutes are clear and unambiguous,” she wrote, noting the state has the discretion to charge juveniles with DUIs in magistrate or juvenile court.