A contentious legal battle over a proposed respite care center at the former Big Sky Lodge has brought Cornerstone Rescue Mission and the City of Rapid City into the courtroom, with Attorney John Dorsey at the forefront of the defense. On March 13, 2025, Seventh Circuit Court Judge Eric Kelderman heard initial arguments in a lawsuit filed by 26 local residents seeking to halt the project. Dorsey, representing Cornerstone, is not only defending the non-profit’s mission but also challenging the validity of the plaintiffs’ case.
The respite care center, a collaborative effort between Cornerstone Rescue Mission, Monument Health, the South Dakota Department of Health, and the Rapid City Fire Department, aims to provide temporary housing for up to 29 unhoused individuals recovering from hospital stays. With $1.2 million in state funding already secured, the facility is poised to fill a critical gap in healthcare support. However, the project has faced resistance since the Rapid City Planning Commission denied its conditional use permit in October 2024—a decision overturned by the City Council in a 6-3 vote on November 4, 2024, following Cornerstone’s appeal.
Now, the 26 plaintiffs are suing both the city and Cornerstone, arguing that the council lacked authority to approve the permit and that the center would cause them “concrete and actual injury.” In response, Dorsey has taken a firm stance, asserting that the lawsuit lacks merit and interferes with Cornerstone’s ability to serve the community.
During the initial hearing, Dorsey emphasized the real-world impact of the dispute. “They’ve asked for a permanent injunction to say that Cornerstone should not be allowed to use that old motel to take in homeless people from the hospital who have no place to go upon discharge,” he told NewsCenter1. Later, he underscored the urgency: “The sooner we get this up and running, the sooner we can place people from the hospital that are ready to go home, who have no home, a place.”
Dorsey’s legal strategy centers on dismantling the plaintiffs’ standing. Under South Dakota law (SDCL 11-2-1.1), a plaintiff must qualify as an “aggrieved person” by demonstrating a specific, non-speculative injury unique to them and causally linked to the challenged action. Dorsey argued that the 26 residents failed to meet this threshold. “How is this unnamed injury causally connected to Cornerstone?” he questioned in court, noting that the plaintiffs did not provide addresses, proximity details, or affidavits proving harm—especially since the center isn’t yet operational. He called the case “woefully lacking” in facts, a point highlighted in the Rapid City Journal’s March 14 coverage.
Beyond challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, Dorsey is supporting Cornerstone’s counterclaim, which asserts that the lawsuit has disrupted the non-profit’s business expectations. With upgrades like fire suppressant equipment already underway, the legal delay threatens to stall a project years in the making.
The hearing also spotlighted a dispute over municipal authority. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Matthew Naasz, argued that Rapid City’s code designates the Planning Commission as the final approving authority for conditional use permits, meaning appeals should go to a judge, not the City Council. The city’s counsel, Kinsley Groote, countered that the council assumes that role upon appeal—a process in place for over 20 years. Dorsey’s defense aligns with the city’s position, reinforcing that the council’s approval was lawful under both state and municipal codes.
Judge Kelderman has yet to rule, leaving the outcome uncertain. A decision against Cornerstone and the city could reshape Rapid City’s permitting process, potentially requiring ordinance amendments or state statute clarification, as attorney Joel Landeen noted in the NewsCenter1 report.
For John Dorsey, this case is more than a legal exercise—it’s about ensuring vulnerable residents have a place to recover. Cornerstone Rescue Mission, which already operates Rapid City’s only homeless shelter, sees the respite center as a natural extension of its mission. Dorsey’s advocacy reflects his commitment to defending clients who serve the public good, navigating complex legal challenges with precision and purpose.
As the case unfolds, Dorsey and his team remain focused on securing a swift resolution. His courtroom arguments—dismissing the plaintiffs’ case as ‘woefully lacking’ and emphasizing the urgency of the respite center’s mission—reflect a strong defense of Cornerstone’s position. Updates will follow as Judge Kelderman’s decision looms.
For more information about John Dorsey’s legal practice or to discuss similar cases, contact Whiting Hagg & Dorsey, PLLC at (605) 600-2984.
