Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found Trent Danielson guilty of perjury. Danielson appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the trial court erred in denying his motion for a court-appointed private investigator, and the court erred in denying a motion in limine and admitting used transmission parts into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's guilty verdict, as a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Danielson's motion for appointment of a private investigator, motion in limine to exclude the transmission parts, and motion to dismiss for the destruction of evidence. View "State v. Danielson" on Justia Law

Rachelle Hunter received a loan from Highmark Federal Credit Union to purchase a home and property. A flood damaged the home a few years later, and Hunter had no flood insurance. Hunter filed suit against Highmark, arguing that Highmark was negligent in failing to warn her to purchase flood insurance and in failing to purchase the insurance at her expense. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Highmark. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hunter's negligence claim failed as a matter of law because she could not show that Highmark owed her a duty, and accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate. View "Highmark Fed. Credit Union v. Hunter" on Justia Law

In the early 1990s, Kevin Costner commissioned Peggy Detmers and Detmers Studios, Inc. (collectively, Detmers) to design several sculptures, intending to display them at the entrance of a luxury resort called The Dunbar that Costner had envisioned. Subsequently, Costner and The Dunber (collectively, Costner) and Detmers entered into a binding contract in which Costner would provide Detmers additional compensation. Paragraph three of the agreement provided that if The Dunbar was not built within ten years or the sculptures were not "agreeably displayed elsewhere," Costner would give Detmers fifty percent of the profits from the sale of the sculptures. The sculptures were later placed on Costner's project called Tatanka. Detmers later brought suit against Costners, seeking a declaratory judgment that she did not agree to the placement of the sculptures as required by paragraph three of the parties' contract. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Costner. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) determining that the sculptures were "agreeably displayed elsewhere," in the absence of a guarantee from Costner that The Dunbar would be built; and (2) concluding that Tatanka was "elsewhere" under the language of the contract. View "Detmers v. Costner" on Justia Law

Dale, Dorothy, Roger, and Daniel Springer owned a forty-acre parcel of property. Andy Cahoy owned an adjoining forty-acre parcel. After the Springers purchased their parcel, they began using Cahoy's parcel to access their property. When Cahoy prohibited the Springers from crossing Cahoy's parcel, the Springers filed suit, claiming an implied easement on Cahoy's parcel. The circuit court concluded that an easement implied from prior use existed with certain limitations. Both parties appealed, and the appeals were consolidated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Springers failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an easement implied from prior use. Remanded. View "Springer v. Cahoy" on Justia Law

Kellie and Doug Rumpca married in August 1990. Around 2005, Glenn Brenner and Kellie became friends. On Labor Day weekend in 2009, Brenner and Kellie had sexual intercourse. In October 2009, Kellie commenced divorce proceedings. In April 2010, Doug brought suit against Brenner for alienation of affections, alleging that Brenner wrongfully, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously interfered with his marital relationship with Kellie, and as a result, he suffered a loss of affection and consortium from Kellie. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Brenner, declaring that there were no affections to alienate. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that conflicting evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kellie had affection for her husband that Brenner could have alienated. Remanded for trial. View "Rumpca v. Brenner" on Justia Law

After witnessing Blair Hamilton accidentally kill himself in October 2009, Lyndon Hart in August 2011 filed a petition to extend time to file a creditor's claim against Hamilton's Estate for the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by the actions of Hamilton. The circuit court denied the petition. Hart appealed and served his notice of appeal only on the Estate's attorney. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Estate's motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to serve notice of appeal on all the heirs was denied, as in this case, the heirs were not parties in a creditor's claim against an estate; and (2) because Hart did not present or file a claim, the Court could not reach the merits of Hart's argument on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to extend time to file a creditor's claim. View "In re Estate of Hamilton" on Justia Law

This case involved a grandchildren visitation disagreement between a father and maternal grandparents. After the children's mother died, the father arranged for the children's continued contact with the grandparents. However, the grandparents were unhappy with the father's restrictions on visitation, and they filed a petition for a broader visitation plan. At the close of the grandparents' case-in-chief, the circuit court granted the father's motion for a judgment as a matter of law and motion for attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion (1) in granting the father's motion for a judgment as a matter of law, as the grandparents did not present any evidence rebutting the father's presumptive parental right to control the custody and visitation of his children; and (2) awarding attorney's fees, as the court's findings and conclusions were based on sufficient evidence and were sufficient to support the award. View "Beach v. Coisman" on Justia Law

Heidi Schumacher signed a renewed lease with Meadowland Apartments. Meadowland later filed an eviction action against Schumacher, alleging that she was in material non-compliance with the lease because Schumacher kept a disruptive dog in her apartment. The magistrate court found that Schumacher's conduct constituted sufficient grounds for termination of the lease. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the magistrate court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Schumacher's motion for a continuance, as Schumacher was given a reasonable opportunity to secure evidence on her behalf; (2) did not abuse its discretion in considering evidence of incidents that occurred prior to the term of Schumacher's most recent lease with Meadowland; and (3) did not err in finding that Meadowland provided reasonable accommodations for Schumacher's disability as required under the Fair Housing Amendments Act. View "Meadowland Apartments v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

Appellant Ryan Rademaker was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Rademaker moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the stop violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. The trial court denied his motion and convicted Rademaker of driving under the influence. Rademaker appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the issue, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the law enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Rademaker's car, and thus, the stop did not violate Rademaker's Fourth Amendment rights. View "State v. Rademaker" on Justia Law

James Cornelius initiated a declaratory judgment action against National Casualty Company to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by National Casualty to Cornelius's employer, Live Line Maintenance, provided uninsured motorist coverage to Cornelius for injuries he sustained while occupying a vehicle owned by Live Line. The circuit court granted National Casualty's motion for summary judgment, finding that Cornelius could not recover uninsured motorist benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for National Casualty because Cornelius presented evidence to support his claim that there was a casual connection between Live Line and Live Line's proprietor's alleged negligent maintenance of the work vehicle and the accident that caused Cornelius's injuries. View "Cornelius v. Nat'l Cas. Co." on Justia Law