The trial court further concluded that it was “an abuse of discretion to single out and penalize [Woodruff] for the same circumstances presented by and to other license holders.” While the board of county commissioners of the county in which an applicant for a retail liquor license seeks to operate “shall have discretion to approve or disapprove the application depending on whether it deems the applicant a suitable person to hold such license and whether it considers the proposed location suitable,” SDCL 35-2-1.2; Luke v. Mellette Cnty., 508 N.W.2d 6, 7 (S.D.1993), this court’s scope of review of a trial court’s decision in a trial de novo is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. See Yadco, Inc. v. Yankton Cnty., 89 S.D. 651, 237 N.W.2d 665, 669-70 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the issue presented on appeal is
holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review