Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Moody County Board of Adjustment granted a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow Mustang Pass, LLC (Mustang) to construct a concentrated animal feeding operation in Moody County. Several citizens (Citizens) petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari to invalidate Mustang’s CUP, asserting (1) the Moody County Board acted in excess of its jurisdiction because Moody County failed, in 2003, to property enact its zoning ordinances creating the Moody County Board of Adjustment; and (2) the statutory scheme applicable to the appeal procedure from a board of adjustment decision violates the Equal Protection Clause. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory scheme comports with the Equal Protection Clause because a rational relationship exists between a legitimate legislative purpose and classifications the statute creates among citizens; and (2) the 2003 ordinances were validly enacted. View "Tibbs v. Bd. of Comm’rs" on Justia Law

Employee was injured at work and underwent surgery. Employee’s health insurer covered the surgery’s costs at a discounted rate. After the Department of Labor found Employer liable for Employee’s condition Employer accepted Employee’s claim and reimbursed Employee for his out of pocket expenses and reimbursed Employee’s insurer for payments it made on Employee’s behalf. Employee challenged the payment, arguing that Employer was required to pay the full medical expense without the health insurance discount. The Department concluded that Employer fulfilled its obligation. The circuit court reversed and found Employer liable for the full medical expense billed before adjustments. Employer appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Department’s order, holding that the Department correctly applied the law in determining that Employer satisfied its statutory reimbursement obligation. View "Whitesell v. Rapid Soft Water & Spas, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal concerned property located in Lincoln County that was unplatted and zoned for agricultural use. The property owner voluntarily petitioned for its annexation to the City of Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls subsequently adopted an annexation resolution under S.D. Codified Laws 9-4-1 annexing the property to be developed for a Walmart store. Neighbors of the property, joined as “Save Our Neighborhood,” petitioned the circuit court for writs of prohibition and certiorari, seeking to invalidate the City’s annexation resolution and to prohibit the City from rezoning the property. Petitioners argued that S.D. Codified Laws 9-4-5 required the City to obtain approval from the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners before adopting a rule to annex the property. The circuit court denied the petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Petitioners’ writs of certiorari and prohibition, holding that the Legislature did not intend section 9-4-5 to apply to a resolution adopted for a voluntary petition for annexation under section 9-4-1. View "Save our Neighborhood v. City of Sioux Falls" on Justia Law

Paul Nelson Farm (“Appellee”) operated an all-inclusive hunting lodge in South Dakota. The Department of Revenue and Regulation conducted an audit on Appellee and determined that Appellee owed unpaid use tax on food, beverages, and ammunition. Appellee argued that it was not required to pay use tax on those items because the food, beverages, and ammunition were not purchased for end use by Appellee but were instead purchased for resale to hunting lodge customers in Appellee’s ordinary course of business. The circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that Appellee was not required to remit use tax on the food but was required to remit use tax on the beverages and ammunition. The Supreme Court held that use tax was not properly imposed on any of the goods because the items were purchased for resale to Appellee’s customers in the regular course of business, and therefore, Appellee’s control and possession of the items did not constitute “use” as defined by S.D. Codified Laws 10-46-1(17). View "Paul Nelson Farm v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Magellan Pipeline Company, LP appealed a sales tax assessment levied by the state Department of Revenue and Regulation on its additive injection and equipment calibration services. The Hearing Examiner, Department Secretary and trial court all found Magellan's services were non-exempt from tax. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under the plain language of the applicable statute, Magellan's services were exempt from sales tax. View "Magellan Pipeline Co v. Dept. of Revenue & Regulation" on Justia Law

Claimant worked for more than ten years as a diesel mechanic for Employer. Claimant had several incidents while working for Employer which he claimed caused neck, back, shoulder, and arm pain. Claimant later submitted a workers' compensation claim and three first reports of injury. Claimant then petitioned the Department of Labor, which denied Claimant workers' compensation benefits based on its finding that Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment. The circuit court affirmed but slightly modified the Department's decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Claimant established by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment. Remanded. View "Smith v. Stan Houston Equip. Co." on Justia Law

The day after Julie served her husband Steven with a summons and complaint for divorce, Steven shot and killed Julie near her car in Julie's employer's parking lot. The personal representative of Julie's estate sought worker's compensation benefits for her death, asserting that Julie's death arose out of her employment. Julie's employer (Employer) denied benefits, as did the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that even though the assault occurred on Employer's premises, the assault could not be attributed to Julie's employment, and therefore, Julie's death did not "arise out of" her employment. View "Voeller v. HSBC Card Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellees John Apland and others (collectively, Apland) and the Butte County Director of Equalization (Director) were involved in a dispute over the method Director used to calculate the value of Apland's rangeland property for tax purposes. In Apland I, the Supreme Court held that Director failed to comply with the Constitutional requirements of equality and uniformity and remanded with direction to Director to re-determine the property values after giving appropriate consideration and value to appurtenant and nontransferable water rights. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Apland, concluding that Director failed to comply with the directives in Apland I. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Director properly executed the directives of Apland I but that the record did not allow the Court to determine whether Director's method of valuation of Apland's property resulted in an equal and uniform assessment. View "Apland v. Bd. of Equalization for Butte County" on Justia Law

Claimant was employed full-time by School District (District). The District later notified Claimant it was replacing her full-time position with a part-time position, which would consist of seventy-five percent of the time of Claimant's full-time position and a twenty-five percent reduction in pay. Claimant rejected the offer of the part-time position and filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor and Regulation, Unemployment Insurance Division concluded that Claimant was eligible to receive unemployment benefits, and an ALJ affirmed. The Secretary of the Department of Labor reversed, finding that Claimant was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. The circuit reversed, concluding that the part-time position was not "suitable" employment and that Claimant had good cause to reject the offer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimant was eligible for unemployment benefits because the twenty-five percent pay reduction made the part-time position unsuitable and gave Claimant good cause to reject the new position. View "Easton v. Hanson Sch. Dist. 30-1 " on Justia Law

Appellant, a forty-eight-year-old who lived independently for two decades, had "borderline intellectual functioning," an expressive language disorder, and a learning disorder. Appellant applied for Home and Community Based Services (HCBS), a federal-state Medicaid Waiver program that provides assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities. The South Dakota Department of Human Services (the Department) denied Appellant's application, determining that Appellant was not eligible for HCBS. After a hearing, an ALJ affirmed the Department's denial. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that the ALJ did not clearly err in finding that Appellant did not qualify for benefits, as the evidence indicated that Appellant was a generally independent client who was able to function with little supervision or in the absence of a continuous active treatment program. View "Nelson v. Dep't of Social Servs." on Justia Law