Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Duane and Melody Remington purchased a campground and later discovered various defects on the property. They sued the seller, Keith Grimm, and the real estate agent, Bryan Iverson, alleging multiple claims including failure to disclose defects, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Remingtons claimed that Iverson and Grimm did not provide a required property disclosure statement and misrepresented the financial condition of the campground.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Iverson, determining that a property disclosure statement was not required because the sale was a commercial transaction. The court did not specifically address the common law claims of nondisclosure against Iverson. The Remingtons appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that a property disclosure statement was required for the living quarters of the campground, which constituted residential real property. The court affirmed the lower court's decision that a disclosure statement was not required for the non-residential aspects of the campground. The case was remanded to determine whether Iverson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform the Remingtons that Grimm was required to provide a property disclosure statement for the living quarters.The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of Iverson’s direct liability, concluding that the Remingtons failed to establish that Iverson had actual knowledge of the alleged defects. The court dismissed Iverson’s notice of review regarding attorney fees and costs due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Remington v. Iverson" on Justia Law

In 2017, Samantha Braun was rear-ended by Radena Wollman in a car accident. Wollman admitted fault, and the case proceeded to a jury trial to determine damages. Braun claimed various injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, and sought significant damages. During the trial, the circuit court admitted several of Braun's medical records over her objections, citing the business records hearsay exception. The jury awarded Braun $125,000, which was significantly less than she requested. Braun appealed, arguing that the admission of her medical records was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced her right to a fair trial.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit admitted the medical records, finding sufficient foundation and applying the business records hearsay exception. Braun objected, arguing lack of foundation and hearsay. The court overruled most of her objections and admitted the records. The jury awarded Braun $125,000 in damages, which she appealed, claiming the court's admission of the records was erroneous and prejudicial.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred in admitting the medical records under the business records exception without proper foundation. However, the court determined that Braun's statements in the records were admissible as non-hearsay, and some statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception. Despite the errors, the court concluded that Braun did not demonstrate substantial prejudice affecting the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the $125,000 damages award. View "Braun v. Wollman" on Justia Law

Krista Dittus sued her former employer, Black Hills Care and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and the company that took over its operations, RC North SD Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Avantara denied the allegations, asserting it had no employment relationship with Dittus at the time of her termination. Black Hills Care did not respond or appear in the case.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Avantara after striking Dittus's untimely response to the motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and ruled that Avantara was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Written orders were entered, and Avantara's counsel served notice of entry of the orders on Dittus's counsel via the court's electronic filing system on September 15, 2023. Dittus's counsel filed a notice of appeal and a civil case docketing statement through the same system on October 13, 2023, but only the docketing statement was served on Avantara's counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction due to Dittus's failure to serve the notice of appeal on Avantara's counsel as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. The court emphasized that both timely filing and service of the notice of appeal are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "Dittus v. Black Hills Care & Rehab and Avantara" on Justia Law

Paul O’Farrell, individually and on behalf of the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, the Estate of Victoria O’Farrell, Skyline Cattle Co., and VOR, Inc., filed a lawsuit against Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren, Inc., the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, and Kelly O’Farrell. Paul alleged that Kelly manipulated their father, Raymond, to orchestrate improper transactions, including a $3.2 million land sale and the non-renewal of Skyline’s lease, causing financial harm to the family entities and himself.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Grant County, South Dakota, presided by Judge Robert L. Spears, dismissed Paul’s claims and awarded attorney fees to the defendants. Paul had requested a change of judge, which was denied by Presiding Judge Stoltenburg, who cited judicial economy and previous submissions by Paul in related cases as reasons for the denial.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Paul and Skyline followed the proper procedure for seeking a change of judge and that neither had waived their right to do so in this specific action. The court found that Judge Spears was disqualified from further proceedings upon the filing of the affidavit for change of judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated all orders entered by Judge Spears in the case and remanded for the appointment of a replacement judge. View "Estate Of O’Farrell v. Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren" on Justia Law

Scott Rudloff was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor under 13 years old. The case began when Rudloff's stepdaughter, L.H., disclosed to her brother, Luke Volk, that Rudloff had been sexually abusing her and her sister, L.R. Law enforcement was called, and forensic interviews and medical examinations were conducted. L.H. and L.R. provided detailed accounts of the abuse, and L.R.'s examination revealed an injury consistent with sexual abuse.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, denied Rudloff's motion to suppress his post-arrest custodial interview, finding that he had been advised of his Miranda rights and had not unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The court also allowed testimony from various witnesses, including the victims, their mother Hillary, and Detective Anderson, who conducted the investigation.Rudloff appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, raising several issues, including the denial of his motion to suppress, the admission of certain testimonies, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rudloff had impliedly waived his Miranda rights and did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimonies and determined that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were within the bounds of fair argument.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the conviction, concluding that the circuit court did not err in its rulings and that Rudloff received a fair trial. View "State v. Rudloff" on Justia Law

Donald Blazer was involved in a vehicle accident and voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which showed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. However, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (Department) notified Blazer of its intent to disqualify his commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life, citing this refusal as a second violation of SDCL 32-12A-36, with the first being a 2014 DUI conviction. Blazer requested an administrative hearing, and the Department affirmed the disqualification of his CDL for life.Blazer appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department’s decision. The circuit court concluded that Blazer’s voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis, meaning his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL. The Department then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The Court held that under SDCL 32-23-1.2, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is permitted and may be required in addition to a chemical test. The Court determined that Blazer’s refusal to submit to the blood draw constituted a refusal to submit to a chemical analysis as required by SDCL 32-12A-46. This refusal was a second violation under SDCL 32-12A-36, justifying the disqualification of Blazer’s CDL for life under SDCL 32-12A-37. The Court emphasized that a PBT is a preliminary test and does not fulfill the requirement for a chemical analysis under the implied consent laws. View "Blazer v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Angel Matta was hired by Dakota Provisions in February 2020 as a production worker. Matta had attendance issues documented by his employer and was injured at work on March 23, 2020, leading to several weeks of missed work. He filed a workers' compensation claim and was terminated by Dakota Provisions one month later. Matta then filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. Matta appealed the decision.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dakota Provisions, concluding that Matta was an at-will employee and could be terminated for any lawful reason. The court also found that Matta failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his disability discrimination claim and did not recognize a common law tort for retaliatory discharge based on a disability.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision in part, agreeing that Matta was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate public policy based on disability discrimination. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding Matta's claim of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Matta's termination was pretextual and retaliatory, given the proximity of his termination to his workers' compensation claim and the inconsistent reasons provided by Dakota Provisions for his termination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Matta v. Dakota Provisions" on Justia Law

Chris Welsh, representing CAL SD, LLC, entered into a purchase agreement with Interwest Leasing, LLC to buy commercial real estate, with a $30,000 earnest money deposit. Welsh passed away before closing, and CAL SD refused to close. Interwest sold the property to another buyer for the same price but did not return the earnest money. CAL SD filed a declaratory judgment action to recover the deposit, claiming the agreement was void due to their inability to obtain financing.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, treated the declaratory judgment as a breach of contract action and set it for a jury trial. The jury found in favor of CAL SD, and the court ordered the return of the earnest money deposit. Interwest appealed, arguing the action was equitable and should not have been decided by a jury, and also claimed the court gave erroneous jury instructions.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the declaratory judgment action was legal, not equitable, because it sought to enforce contractual rights under the purchase agreement, which was void if financing was not obtained. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to submit the case to a jury for a binding verdict, as the issue was whether CAL SD breached the contract by failing to secure financing. The court concluded that the jury's determination that CAL SD was unable to obtain financing rendered the purchase agreement void, entitling CAL SD to the return of the earnest money deposit. View "Cal SD, LLC v. Interwest Leasing, LLC" on Justia Law

In the early morning of March 19, 2022, Quincy Bear Robe, his girlfriend, and her friends were in a hotel room when Myron Pourier and his friends entered uninvited. An altercation ensued, during which Bear Robe and Isaac Runningshield discharged their guns, resulting in Pourier's death from two gunshot wounds. Bear Robe was found nearby with a .40 caliber handgun and later bragged about the shooting to a friend. He was indicted on charges including second-degree murder and first-degree murder but accepted a plea agreement to plead guilty to first-degree manslaughter.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, accepted Bear Robe's guilty plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI noted Bear Robe's lack of prior criminal record, his young age, and several mitigating factors from his childhood, including mental health issues and a chaotic home environment. Despite these factors and letters of support from family and community members, the circuit court sentenced Bear Robe to 75 years in the penitentiary without any time suspended.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. Bear Robe argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by focusing too heavily on general deterrence and not adequately considering mitigating evidence. He also contended that the sentence was cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion, as it had thoroughly considered Bear Robe's character and history, and the sentence was within the permissible range. The court also found that the 75-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense of first-degree manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State v. Bear Robe" on Justia Law

In February 2022, a Brule County grand jury indicted Nathan Antuna for third-degree rape, alleged to have occurred in August 2016. Antuna requested the State to obtain any mental health treatment records of the victim, K.B. The State objected, stating it had no such records and was unaware if any existed. The circuit court ordered the State to determine if such records existed and provide them for an in-camera review. K.B. asserted her rights under Marsy’s Law, and Antuna served a subpoena on K.B. seeking the same records. The State moved to quash the subpoena, but the court ordered the State to investigate and obtain any records for in-camera inspection. The State filed a petition for an intermediate appeal, which was granted.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit directed the State to inquire about the existence of K.B.'s mental health records and provide them for in-camera review. The State objected, asserting that it had no such records and that K.B. was asserting her rights under Marsy’s Law. The court did not rule on the motion to quash but ordered the State to investigate and obtain any records. The State filed a petition for an intermediate appeal, which was granted.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s order. The court held that the Brady rule does not require prosecutors to investigate defense theories or compel the State to collect evidence for the defense. The court also held that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation is a trial right, not a discovery tool. The court found that SDCL 23A-13-4 does not support the circuit court’s order, as it requires prosecutors to disclose information within their possession, not to create or investigate new information. The court directed the circuit court to grant the motion to quash Antuna’s subpoena, as it did not meet the requirements for production under the Nixon factors. View "State v. Antuna" on Justia Law