Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was the Meade County Board of County Commissioners’ order approving incorporation of a proposed municipality of Buffalo Chip City and setting an election for voters to decide whether to assent to incorporation.After denying a request to stay the election, the election was held, and a majority of voters chose to incorporate Buffalo Chip City. The Board then declared Buffalo Chip City formally incorporated. The circuit court heard Appellees’ appeal and issued a judgment declaring that the Board’s order was invalid, that the election was a nullity, and that Buffalo Chip City was void. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that S.D. Codified Laws 9-3-20 requires that any action challenging Buffalo Chip City’s incorporation be brought by the State, and because Appellees did not bring their suit on behalf of the State, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lippold v. Meade County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

At issue was the Meade County Board of County Commissioners’ order approving incorporation of a proposed municipality of Buffalo Chip City and setting an election for voters to decide whether to assent to incorporation.After denying a request to stay the election, the election was held, and a majority of voters chose to incorporate Buffalo Chip City. The Board then declared Buffalo Chip City formally incorporated. The circuit court heard Appellees’ appeal and issued a judgment declaring that the Board’s order was invalid, that the election was a nullity, and that Buffalo Chip City was void. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the circuit court’s judgment, holding that S.D. Codified Laws 9-3-20 requires that any action challenging Buffalo Chip City’s incorporation be brought by the State, and because Appellees did not bring their suit on behalf of the State, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Lippold v. Meade County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s issuance of an injunction requiring modification or reconstruction of a new home but reversed the circuit court’s conclusion that the City of Sioux Falls owed adjacent property owners a duty to properly enforce building codes. Property owners adjacent to a newly constructed home located within a historic district sought the injunction and also alleged that the City was negligent in issuing a building permit and failing to enforce state regulations on new construction in historic districts as well as a local ordinance governing chimneys. The Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in granting an injunction with respect to the historic-district regulations; but (2) the circuit court erred in concluding that the new home violated the chimney ordinance and that the City owed a duty to the adjacent owners. View "McDowell v. Sapienza" on Justia Law

Dallas Schott, owner of Corson County Feeders, Inc., sued South Dakota Wheat Growers Association (SDWG), alleging its agronomist incorrectly prescribed a herbicide that Schott sprayed on his 2014 sunflower crop. The herbicide was not labeled for use on all of Schott’s sunflowers, and 1,200 acres were destroyed. The circuit court granted SDWG summary judgment, ruling that Schott assumed the risk. After review, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded after finding there were disputed issues of fact concerning Schott’s knowledge and appreciation of the risk. View "Schott v. So. Dakota Wheat Growers Assn." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgment of the circuit court, through formal condemnation proceedings, approving the petition of Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. and Otter Tail Power Co. (collectively, Utilities) seeking easements to construct a powerline across four parcels belonging to Parkshill Farms, LLC, Reuben Parks, Vera Parks, and Ordean Parks. The court held (1) the easements were taken for a public use; (2) the Utilities’ necessity determination was not an abuse of discretion; but (3) the circuit court did not adequately instruct the jury on the appropriate measure of compensation due for the easements. The court remanded for a new trial on compensation. View "Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Parkshill Farms, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court denying Lawrence County’s motion to join the United States as an indispensable party to this action filed by various Landowners requesting that the County maintain a road providing access to their homes. The County denied the Landowners’ request. Petitioner appealed the County’s action, and the County moved to join the United States as an indispensable party. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the United States Forest Service was not an indispensable party to the action because the County failed to follow the proper procedure to grant an easement in the road to the Forest Service. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court committed clear error in ruling on the easement without first determining whether the United States was a party that should have been joined if feasible. View "Oyen v. Lawrence County Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Landowners’ request that the State pay reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws 5-2-18 and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA), 42 U.S.C. 4601-4655, after Landowners prevailed against the State on their claim of inverse condemnation. On appeal, Landowners argued that they were entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under section 5-2-18 because they prevailed on their inverse condemnation claim, asserting that the legislature intended to adopt by reference the URA when it enacted section 5-2-18. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err in denying Landowners’ motion for attorney’s fees and expenses because, while section 5-2-18 incorporates by reference the provisions of the URA, its application is permissive rather than mandatory. View "Long v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Landowners on their inverse condemnation claim against the State seeking damages and a permanent injunction due to flooding on Landowners’ properties. The court held (1) the circuit court did not err in refusing to dismiss Landowners’ inverse condemnation claims based upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) the circuit court did not err in its determination that the State’s actions caused water to invade and damage Landowners’ properties in violation of S.D. Const. art. VI, 13; (3) the State was not entitled to filed a cross-claim against the City of Sioux Falls for contribution under the Joint Tortfeasor Act; and (4) the State did not acquire a drainage easement over Landowners’ real estate. View "Long v. State" on Justia Law

The circuit court erred when it applied de novo review to a decision of the America Township Board of Supervisors and then reversed the Board’s decision downgrading a seven-mile stretch of road from full maintenance to minimum maintenance. A portion of the road at issue provided Appellees access to South Dakota Highway 50. Appellees appealed the Board’s decision. The circuit court reversed the Board’s decision and ordered that minimum maintenance signs be taken down. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Appellees’ lawsuit was not barred by lack of standing or by sovereign immunity; (2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the Board acted arbitrarily because the Board failed to consider an important aspect of the issue under S.D. Codified Laws 31-13-1.1; but (3) the circuit court should have remanded the matter back to the Board for a rehearing rather than applying de novo review to the Board’s decision. View "Surat v. America Township" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the circuit court finding that Plaintiffs ido not have an easement, either by grant or prescription, across Mineral Survey 1758 (M.S. 1758) into the adjoining Mineral Survey 1794. On appeal, Plaintiffs asserted that a public right-of-way existed across M.S. 1758 by grant but did not appeal the denial of a prescriptive easement. In affirming, the Supreme Court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish a right in the disputed road that traverses M.S. 1758 by grant in deeds or by statute, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in determining that the disputed road is private. View "Chicoine v. Davis" on Justia Law