Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A patient in his mid-thirties, with a history of neurological complaints but no similar recent issues, was hospitalized twice in early April 2018 for severe testicular pain at a regional medical center. During the second admission, he received high doses of opioid medications, with documented warnings about their risks and instructions for monitoring his respiratory function. On the last day of his hospitalization, he exhibited abnormal drowsiness and a low respiratory rate. Shortly after discharge, his wife observed sudden, profound cognitive and behavioral changes, including confusion, speech difficulties, and memory problems. Over the following months, he underwent multiple neurological and psychiatric evaluations, many of which failed to show physiological brain abnormalities. Several providers ultimately diagnosed him with functional neurological (conversion) disorder, while a brain injury rehabilitation center noted a history of hypoxia based on family accounts.The patient and his wife filed a medical malpractice suit against the hospital and a treating physician in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Beadle County, South Dakota. They alleged negligent overprescription of opioids and inadequate monitoring, resulting in a hypoxic brain injury. The defendants moved to exclude the plaintiffs’ causation expert, arguing that his methods were unreliable under Daubert and state law. The circuit court excluded the expert’s testimony and granted summary judgment for the defendants, reasoning that without expert causation testimony, the plaintiffs could not establish a genuine issue of material fact.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the exclusion of the expert’s testimony and the grant of summary judgment were proper. The court held that the circuit court erred by failing to assess the reliability of the expert’s overall differential diagnosis methodology and by excluding all his opinions based solely on certain quantitative tests. The Supreme Court reversed the exclusion of most of the expert’s testimony (except regarding two specific tests) and reversed summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed. View "Walton V. Huron Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

A businessman and rancher in South Dakota, after dating a Colorado horse breeder for nearly a year, proposed marriage. Shortly before the wedding, he presented her with a prenuptial agreement drafted by his attorney. The agreement waived her right to any share of his estate after his death. The parties signed the agreement at the attorney’s office minutes before their civil ceremony. They were later married in Italy and had two children. The businessman died approximately eight years later. The surviving spouse then petitioned for an elective share of the estate and a family allowance, claiming her signature on the agreement was involuntary and the agreement was unconscionable.The Fourth Judicial Circuit Court of Dewey County, South Dakota, held a trial on her petition. The court granted her request for a family allowance but denied her petition for an elective share. The court found she voluntarily signed the agreement and that it was not unconscionable, emphasizing her education, business experience, and opportunity to review the agreement or consult independent counsel. The court also found that the financial disclosures provided were fair and reasonable, and that the terms of the agreement, including a provision for her in the event of divorce, were not disproportionate or unjust. Stephanie appealed the denial of her elective share.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Court held that the prenuptial agreement was voluntarily executed and was not unconscionable under South Dakota law. It found no clear error in the circuit court’s factual findings and determined that the financial disclosure and circumstances surrounding execution of the agreement satisfied statutory requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed the validity and enforceability of the prenuptial agreement and the waiver of the elective share. View "Estate Of Webb" on Justia Law

Tony petitioned for formal probate of his mother Judith’s will and codicil, which left her entire estate to him and specifically disinherited her other children, Rick, Sandy, and Beth. The siblings objected, alleging that the will was the product of undue influence, among other claims. The dispute centered on family dynamics and prior business conflicts between Tony and Rick, including previous litigation over property and asset division. In the prior case, the court made adverse findings about Tony’s credibility and honesty regarding his dealings with Rick.The siblings, as respondents, successfully moved in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Todd County, for the admission of the prior court’s findings and conclusions under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, arguing these were relevant to the undue influence claim. The circuit court admitted almost all of the findings from the prior case as conclusively established, including negative credibility determinations about Tony. The jury in the undue influence trial was instructed to accept these findings as true, and ultimately found that Tony had unduly influenced Judith, invalidating the will.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed whether the circuit court properly applied collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred by admitting the prior findings wholesale, as the issues in the prior litigation were not identical to those in the undue influence case and the credibility determinations were not essential to the prior judgment. The Supreme Court found this error was prejudicial, as it likely impacted the jury’s assessment of Tony’s credibility, a central issue in the undue influence claim. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Estate Of O'Neill" on Justia Law

LJP Consulting LLC, a New Jersey business, entered into a Referral Agreement with Total Card, Inc. (TCI) under which LJP would receive a 3% referral fee on servicing revenue generated from businesses it referred to TCI. In 2014, LJP referred First Equity Credit Card Corp. to TCI, resulting in a servicing relationship. In late 2020, Vervent, Inc. acquired TCI and its associated obligations, including those under the Referral Agreement. Vervent paid LJP the referral fee for two months post-acquisition, then terminated the Referral Agreement and ceased payments in January 2021. LJP sued, seeking a declaratory judgment confirming the validity of the agreement and its entitlement to ongoing referral fees while Vervent serviced First Equity accounts.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, denied Vervent's motion to dismiss and granted partial summary judgment to LJP, finding Vervent liable for breaching the Referral Agreement but leaving damages for trial. After Vervent’s sister company acquired First Equity in March 2022, Vervent argued it no longer owed referral fees. The court initially excluded evidence of this acquisition but later reversed that ruling during trial. A jury awarded LJP over $1 million in damages, including fees post-acquisition, and the court issued a permanent injunction requiring future payments so long as Vervent serviced First Equity accounts. Vervent’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and remittitur were denied.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s determination that the Referral Agreement was not terminable at will. However, it reversed the denial of Vervent’s motions for judgment as a matter of law regarding damages after the First Equity acquisition, holding that Vervent’s obligation to pay referral fees ended once its affiliate acquired First Equity and there was no renewed client contractual relationship. The permanent injunction and post-acquisition damages award were vacated. View "LJP Consulting, LLC v. Vervent, Inc." on Justia Law

Two companies, Gulf Coast Investments, LLC and Trigger Energy Holdings, LLC, sold their membership interests in Blueprint Energy Partners, LLC to TCU Holdings, LLC. Blueprint, formed in 2017 for shale oil operations in Wyoming, originally had three equal members: Gulf Coast, Trigger, and TCU, with Aladdin Capital, Inc. as the manager and primary creditor. After financial struggles and interpersonal conflicts, the parties negotiated the buyout in 2019. TCU’s principal, Kent Stevens, threatened to leave and take staff and clients unless Gulf Coast and Trigger agreed to a set price, known as the “dynamite option.” Despite these threats, the plaintiffs were represented by counsel who advised them of alternatives, and negotiations spanned several months, culminating in a signed purchase agreement.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, reviewed the plaintiffs’ post-sale lawsuit alleging economic duress, breach of operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, shareholder oppression, unjust enrichment, and sought accounting and injunctive relief. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all counts, reasoning that the plaintiffs voluntarily entered the agreement, had legal alternatives, and that the contract itself contained a waiver of further claims. The court also addressed each substantive claim on its merits, finding no legal basis for recovery.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that, under either the three-part or two-part test for economic duress, the plaintiffs failed to show involuntary acceptance or lack of reasonable alternatives. The court also found no breach of the operating agreement or fiduciary duties, no tortious interference or shareholder oppression, and no basis for unjust enrichment or usurpation. The holding confirms the validity and enforceability of the purchase agreement and disposes of all claims against the defendants. View "Trigger Energy Holdings v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Amanda Biteler was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (second offense) and released on bond in Lincoln County, South Dakota. As a condition of her bond, she was required to participate in the 24/7 alcohol monitoring program, initially submitting in-person breath tests and later authorized to use a remote breath device. This device takes a photograph of the person submitting each breath test. On December 9, 2023, her test was flagged by the monitoring software, revealing evidence that another person may have provided the breath sample while Biteler was in front of the camera. Subsequent review identified five additional suspicious incidents. Biteler was charged with six counts of false reporting to authorities under SDCL 22-11-9(3).After a court trial in the Magistrate Court for the Second Judicial Circuit, the judge convicted Biteler for the December 9 incident and acquitted her on the remaining counts. The magistrate court found that the breath test and accompanying photograph constituted a "report" under the statute, that Biteler intentionally transmitted it to law enforcement, that the report concerned law enforcement’s official duties, and that she knew the information was false. Biteler appealed to the Circuit Court, arguing the statutory term “report” was ambiguous and did not encompass her compelled breath submissions. The Circuit Court reversed the conviction, reasoning that her submissions were not “reports” within the statute’s meaning, as they were not voluntary communications.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case, applying de novo review to the statutory interpretation of SDCL 22-11-9(3). The court held that the term “report” under the statute is not limited to formal or voluntary communications but encompasses any transmission furnishing information to law enforcement, regardless of medium or voluntariness. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision and reinstated Biteler’s conviction. View "State v. Biteler" on Justia Law

A motorcyclist attending the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota was injured in a 2017 collision when another driver allegedly pulled out in front of him. The injured party, a resident of Canada, filed a negligence lawsuit against the driver in July 2020. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff’s counsel granted the defendant’s insurance carrier an open-ended extension to file an answer, due to ongoing medical treatment and uncertainty about the extent of injuries. The parties operated under this informal agreement while the plaintiff continued treatment and sought additional information related to his injuries and damages.Over the next several years, the Meade County clerk of courts issued three notices of intent to dismiss the case for inactivity, to which the plaintiff timely objected, citing the ongoing extension and the need to collect further information. In August 2024, the defendant retained counsel, who acknowledged and reaffirmed the open-ended extension agreement. However, two months later, the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, granted the dismissal with prejudice under SDCL 15-11-11 and SDCL 15-6-41(b) (Rule 41(b)), concluding there was unreasonable and unexplained delay.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota held that dismissal was improper. The Court found that the mutual open-ended extension agreement between the parties constituted good cause for delay under SDCL 15-11-11. Additionally, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s conduct did not rise to the level of egregiousness required for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b), especially given the reaffirmed extension and lack of prejudice to the defendant. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arrowsmith v. Odle" on Justia Law

Brian Jessop and Lisa Combs are the parents of a young child, B.J.J. After their relationship ended, Lisa moved with B.J.J. from Utah to Rapid City, South Dakota. Brian filed a petition seeking parenting time consistent with the South Dakota Parenting Guidelines, while Lisa opposed unsupervised visitation and requested sole custody and only supervised contact for Brian, citing concerns about his alleged ties to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) and claims of past abuse. Throughout the proceedings, Lisa maintained that Brian’s involvement with the FLDS posed risks to B.J.J., and she also alleged that Brian had raped her, resulting in the child’s conception. Brian denied the allegations of abuse and FLDS involvement, asserting that he had left the church years earlier.The custody matter was heard in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota. Prior to trial, Lisa unsuccessfully sought a continuance due to an unavailable witness and later moved to exclude rebuttal testimony from Brian’s wife, which was also denied. After a bench trial, the circuit court rejected Lisa’s rape allegations and found insufficient evidence that Brian was a current member or follower of the FLDS. The custody evaluator recommended primary physical custody to Lisa but supported unsupervised visitation for Brian. The court awarded joint legal custody, primary physical custody to Lisa, and unsupervised parenting time to Brian, following the Parenting Guidelines.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lisa’s motions for continuance and exclusion of rebuttal testimony, nor did it err in its findings regarding Brian’s lack of FLDS involvement and the rape allegation. The Supreme Court also affirmed the denial of Lisa’s request for attorney fees and declined to award appellate attorney fees. View "Jessop v. Combs" on Justia Law

A man became the stepfather to five children after moving in with their mother on a ranch in Corson County, South Dakota. Over several years, he took on the role of disciplinarian, and his methods escalated into severe physical abuse, including shocking the children with a cattle prod, using shock collars, and physical beatings. He also provided illegal drugs to some of the children and subjected his stepdaughter to repeated sexual assaults, beginning when she was fourteen. The pattern of abuse and cruelty continued even as the family moved around the country, including periods spent in Oklahoma and Sioux Falls.After one of the children disclosed the abuse to a military recruiter, law enforcement became involved, and the man was convicted for related conduct in Minnehaha County. He was later indicted in Corson County on multiple charges: three counts of rape, three counts of aggravated assault, and five counts of abuse or cruelty to a minor. The State sought to admit evidence of similar abusive acts occurring in other jurisdictions. The defense objected, arguing these incidents were irrelevant and too remote, but after a hearing, the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit allowed the evidence, reasoning it showed a common plan and the nature of the familial relationship. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The Circuit Court also denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on one rape count.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of acts committed outside Corson County, finding such evidence admissible to show motive, plan, and the relationship between the defendant and the victims. The Supreme Court also concluded that sufficient evidence supported the second-degree rape conviction, determining that the jury could reasonably find the element of force or coercion was met. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Long" on Justia Law

A man managed his elderly mother’s finances and care after his father’s death. He was given power of attorney and access to her accounts. Over several years, he arranged for large sums to be transferred from her investment and checking accounts to support his struggling business. Additionally, he mortgaged significant parcels of the family’s farmland—held in his mother’s revocable trust—as collateral for loans used primarily for his benefit. Some of these financial moves occurred while his mother’s cognitive abilities were declining, and she was living in assisted care.After concerns about these transactions were raised by a family member, law enforcement investigated. The State charged the man with multiple counts of theft by exploitation of an elder under South Dakota law, related both to the mortgages and the transfers from his mother’s accounts. At trial in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Spink County, a jury found him guilty on all counts. The circuit court imposed fully suspended penitentiary sentences and probation. The defendant appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of the crimes, and also objected to the jury instructions regarding his claimed good faith defense.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that the defendant voluntarily assumed a duty to support his mother, was entrusted with her property, and appropriated her property for his own benefit with intent to defraud, not in the lawful execution of his trust. The court also determined that the jury was properly instructed on good faith and the State’s burden of proof. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Clemensen" on Justia Law