Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A solo attorney and another law firm entered into contingency fee agreements with three clients for representation in workers’ compensation matters, providing for a 50/50 split of any attorney’s fees. After the solo attorney died, disputes arose over how much his estate was owed for fees from two resolved cases and a third pending case. The settlement for the first client was received shortly before the attorney’s death, while the second client’s case settled months later. The estate sued to recover its share of fees and for a declaratory judgment regarding the third case, which remained unresolved.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, found that the attorney’s contracts with the second and third clients expired at his death, and that the estate had been fully paid for the first two cases. The court also awarded prejudgment interest to the estate for delayed payment on the first client’s case and ordered the estate to pay prejudgment interest to the law firm for the disputed portion of the second client’s fees that had been deposited with the court. The estate and the law firm both appealed aspects of the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the ruling that the contingency fee agreements for the second and third clients terminated upon the attorney’s death. However, it reversed the finding that the estate had been fully paid for services rendered in the second client’s case, holding that the estate could recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered before death, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of prejudgment interest to the law firm for the deposited funds and directed recalculation of prejudgment interest owed to the estate for the first client’s case based on the timing of unconditional tender and full payment. View "Groves v. Goodsell & Oviatt LLP" on Justia Law

David Wetch suffered a spinal cord injury in 1991 while employed by Midcontinent Media, Inc., leading to a stipulated settlement in 1994 that recognized his permanent and total disability and provided ongoing medical benefits. In 2010, Wetch experienced a fall at his apartment, resulting in new injuries and an increased need for medical care, but he did not inform the insurer of this event. His requests for medical benefits rose following the fall, prompting further proceedings and enforcement efforts regarding medical payments between 2014 and 2018.After discovering the 2010 fall during federal litigation, the employer and insurer sought to have the South Dakota Department of Labor review Wetch’s medical payments, arguing the fall constituted a change in condition and that subsequent treatment was related to the fall rather than the original work injury. The Department held a hearing and found a change in condition, suggesting benefits should be ended or diminished, but did not specify which action or the extent of any reduction. The Circuit Court for Hughes County affirmed the Department’s finding but similarly failed to determine whether benefits should be ended or diminished. Both parties appealed these incomplete orders.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the Department’s order constituted a final, appealable decision under SDCL 62-7-33. The court held that the Department’s order was not final because it did not resolve whether Wetch’s benefits should be ended or diminished, nor did it specify the amount or nature of any change. As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and vacated the circuit court’s order, directing that a final determination must be made before appellate review can occur. View "Wetch v. Midcontinent Media, Inc." on Justia Law

Two siblings inherited a ranch and campground from their father. One sibling actively managed the properties, operated the business, and distributed annual payments to the other sibling based on her ownership share. Over time, the managing sibling purchased their mother’s interest, consulted an accountant who advised filing partnership tax returns, and continued to issue payments and tax forms to the other sibling. The siblings discussed formalizing their arrangement into business entities, but never completed operating agreements or transferred property. Later, they negotiated the sale of one sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, and a check was delivered, but not cashed. The non-managing sibling subsequently asserted that she had not agreed to the sale and claimed a partnership existed between them.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, South Dakota, held a bifurcated trial on the partnership and partition issues. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, it found that the siblings did not intend to jointly carry on a business for profit and had not formed a partnership under South Dakota law. It further determined that an enforceable agreement existed for the sale of the non-managing sibling’s interest in the cattle herd, despite her attempts to disavow the sale after the fact.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. It affirmed, holding that no partnership was formed because the siblings lacked the requisite intent and co-ownership control for a partnership under SDCL 48-7A-202. It also upheld the finding that an enforceable contract existed for the sale of the cattle interest. The Supreme Court’s disposition was to affirm the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. View "Sleep v. Steele" on Justia Law

A man lived with his girlfriend in an apartment in Pierre, South Dakota, where they invited a teenage girl to spend time with them. On the evening in question, the group played cards and drank alcohol, but tensions arose, particularly between the man and the girl. After two friends left the apartment, the girlfriend became ill and went to the bathroom, followed by the girl to assist her. The man entered the bathroom, argued with the girl, and the girlfriend fled to seek help. Police responded to 911 calls shortly thereafter, encountered the man at the apartment, and noticed blood on him. Upon entry, police discovered the girl’s body in the bathroom, having suffered multiple stab wounds. The man was arrested, and forensic evidence linked him to the crime scene and the murder weapon.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Hughes County, presided over the trial. During jury selection, the State used a peremptory strike to remove a Native American juror, prompting a Batson challenge from the defense. The circuit court accepted the State’s race-neutral justifications—prior negative interactions with law enforcement and criminal history—as valid reasons for the strike and allowed it to stand. At trial, the man testified, offering conflicting accounts of the events. The jury acquitted him of first-degree murder and aggravated assault but convicted him of second-degree murder, resulting in a life sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that the circuit court did not clearly err in allowing the State’s peremptory strike, finding the reasons provided to be race-neutral and not pretextual. It also concluded that the State’s closing argument comments did not constitute improper vouching or prosecutorial misconduct. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "State v. Shangreaux" on Justia Law

A married couple, both active-duty military members, separated after nearly two decades of marriage and executed a notarized separation agreement in 2020 while stationed in Okinawa. The agreement provided that the wife would receive $1,500 per month in maintenance until divorce, 20% of the husband’s military retirement pay upon his retirement, and be named as beneficiary of his Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). The wife later initiated a divorce in South Dakota, and the parties submitted a stipulation and settlement agreement incorporating key provisions from their separation. The divorce decree was filed in February 2021. Over time, the husband failed to make some required maintenance payments and, after retiring, did not pay the wife her portion of his retirement nor complete the SBP paperwork. The wife sought contempt and modifications, while the husband argued compliance was impossible due to deficiencies in the decree.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Charles Mix County, declined to hold the husband in contempt, finding the divorce decree’s orders too vague for enforcement. The court denied modification of the property division, found no fraud or coercion, and refused to vacate the decree. It reduced the wife’s retirement share from 20% to 16.1% using a coverture formula, ordered payment of $5,000 in arrears plus 8% interest, and instructed the husband to effectuate the SBP. Both parties appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that reducing the wife’s retirement share below the agreed 20% was error, as was applying an 8% rather than the statutory 10% interest rate to arrears. The court remanded for correction of those issues, but affirmed the denial of contempt, refusal to vacate the decree, and the exclusion of additional payments for stimulus or tax refunds. The court also found no due process violations or abuse of discretion in declining to take sworn testimony. View "Shevling v. Major" on Justia Law

An eight-year-old girl, A.R., disclosed to her mother that she had been sexually abused by her thirty-year-old half-brother, Tell Cadotte, over a two-year period. After reporting the abuse to the police, A.R. underwent a forensic interview, during which she described the abuse and produced drawings depicting the incidents. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Cadotte’s home, where they seized several electronic devices. Forensic examination of these devices revealed over 300 images and videos of child pornography, including multiple pictures that apparently depicted A.R. being abused. Cadotte was charged with multiple counts of first-degree rape and one count of sexual contact with a minor.After a federal conviction for possession of child pornography, Cadotte proceeded to trial in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota. During trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of certain sanitized photographs, arguing the State had committed a discovery violation by not providing all the images intended for use. The defense also objected to testimony from a detective recounting the victim’s mother’s identification of A.R. in the photographs, claiming it was inadmissible hearsay. The court admitted the evidence, and the jury convicted Cadotte on nine counts of first-degree rape and one count of sexual contact with a minor. The court acquitted him on one rape count for insufficient evidence and sentenced him to seventy years, concurrent with a ten-year term for sexual contact, but consecutive to his federal sentence.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that there was no discovery violation because the State had complied with its statutory obligations, and the defense had access to the evidence in question. The court also held that even if the detective’s testimony was hearsay, its admission was not prejudicial since it was cumulative of other admissible testimony. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Cadotte" on Justia Law

A jury found the defendant guilty of third-degree rape in September 2020. The circuit court entered a judgment of conviction in January 2021, sentencing him to ten years in the penitentiary with seven years suspended. The defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. He was released from the penitentiary on parole in March 2022. In January 2023, while still on parole, the defendant moved for a sentence reduction, requesting a suspended imposition of sentence. The circuit court granted this motion, placing him on probation.The State objected, first moving for reconsideration on the grounds that the circuit court lacked authority to grant a suspended imposition of sentence after a judgment of conviction and that this would improperly remove the defendant from executive supervision. The circuit court denied the State’s motion and entered an order granting the suspended imposition of sentence. The State appealed, but the Supreme Court of South Dakota dismissed the appeal for lack of statutory appellate jurisdiction. The State then filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the circuit court again denied. The State petitioned for a discretionary appeal, which the Supreme Court of South Dakota granted.The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the circuit court erred in concluding that res judicata barred the State’s challenge, as the State had not previously had an opportunity for appellate review. The Supreme Court further held that neither SDCL 23A-27-19 nor SDCL 23A-31-1 authorized a circuit court to vacate a judgment of conviction in order to grant a suspended imposition of sentence after a sentence has been imposed. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s order suspending the imposition of the defendant’s sentence. View "State v. Pickner" on Justia Law

Two neighboring property owners with lakefront lots in the Ramona Beach subdivision became involved in a dispute over the boundary between their properties. The plaintiffs, who purchased their lots in 2005, claimed that they had acquired ownership of a strip of land through adverse possession. This disputed area included portions of two garages that had been built by previous owners and which physically encroach onto the defendants’ lots. The defendants acquired their lots in 2015 and, after conducting a survey, discovered the encroachments. The dispute escalated after the defendants sought to build a new garage, prompting the plaintiffs to initiate a lawsuit to prevent construction and assert adverse possession over the contested land.The Fifth Judicial Circuit Court held a bench trial, heard live and deposition testimony, and reviewed documentary evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, specifically concluding that there was no substantial enclosure or usual cultivation or improvement of the disputed land as required by law. However, the court granted the plaintiffs prescriptive easements for the portions of the garages that encroached onto the defendants’ property, though it limited the easements to the actual areas occupied by the garages and immediate areas necessary for their maintenance. The court denied the plaintiffs’ further requests to expand the easements and to add an additional easement for lake access.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It affirmed the circuit court’s findings and legal conclusions, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish adverse possession, and that the prescriptive easements for the garages were properly granted and appropriately limited. The Supreme Court also found that the plaintiffs’ additional claim for a lake access easement was not properly preserved for appeal and was therefore waived. View "Luzier v. Hemmah" on Justia Law

The county commission in a South Dakota county adopted an ordinance amending its zoning regulations. The key change was to substitute the “board of adjustment” in place of the “county commission” and “planning and zoning board” as the authority to consider conditional use permit (CUP) applications and variances. Save Centennial Valley Association, a local group, submitted a petition to the county auditor seeking to refer the ordinance to a public vote, arguing that the amendments were legislative actions subject to referendum under state law. The auditor, after consulting with the commission, rejected the petition, determining the ordinance was administrative and not subject to referendum. The petitioners then requested a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the auditor to refer the ordinance to a vote.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, considered the pleadings and granted judgment on the pleadings to the county, denying the request for mandamus. The court found that the ordinance did not constitute a legislative decision and was therefore not subject to the referendum process. The petitioners appealed this determination.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the matter de novo, considering whether the ordinance was legislative or administrative under SDCL 7-18A-15.1. The court held that the ordinance merely executed a plan already adopted by the governing body or by the Legislature and did not create a new rule or policy. The court also clarified that decisions on CUPs, whether made by the commission or the board of adjustment, are quasi-judicial and not subject to referendum. Therefore, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the ordinance was an administrative decision not subject to the referendum process, and the petitioners were not entitled to mandamus relief. View "Save Centennial Valley Association v. Mcgruder" on Justia Law

Two Sioux Falls police officers attempted to stop a stolen vehicle driven by a suspect who had absconded from parole and was believed to be armed. During a subsequent foot chase, the suspect allegedly shot at the officers, injuring one, and later exchanged gunfire with other law enforcement before being apprehended. After his arrest, the Minnehaha County State’s Attorney filed criminal charges, and the unredacted names of the two officers appeared in public court documents. The officers, invoking their rights as crime victims under Article VI, § 29 of the South Dakota Constitution (Marsy’s Law), requested that their names and any identifying information be redacted from public filings, citing concerns about potential harassment or targeting.Initially, the officers sought relief through a writ of mandamus, which was denied by a judge outside the circuit, who found that Marsy’s Law and South Dakota statutes provided an adequate remedy within the ongoing criminal proceedings. The officers then intervened directly in the criminal case, moving to have their names redacted. The Second Judicial Circuit Court denied their motion, reasoning that Marsy’s Law did not expressly provide a right to anonymity and that, even if the officers were assumed to be “victims,” their names alone did not constitute protected information under Marsy’s Law.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed and remanded. The Court held that law enforcement officers can qualify as “victims” under Marsy’s Law when a crime is committed against them. It further held that a victim’s name or initials are “information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family” and may be subject to redaction upon request. However, the Court clarified that Marsy’s Law does not grant a categorical right to redaction; rather, courts must balance victims’ rights with defendants’ and the public’s constitutional rights on a case-by-case basis. View "State v. Albaidhani" on Justia Law