Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Minority shareholders (Plaintiffs) brought this action against minority shareholders (Defendants), individually and as officers or directors of Multi-Community Cooperative Dairy (MCC Dairy). Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged six causes of action, including oppression and/or unfairly prejudicial conduct toward minority shareholders, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and restraint of trade or commerce. The circuit court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint. The court also granted Defendants' motion for sanctions on the ground that Plaintiffs and their counsel had abused the discovery process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court id not err as a matter of law in granting summary judgment, as there was no support that Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in ordering sanctions against Plaintiffs for abuse of discovery in refusing to attend depositions scheduled by Defendants. View "Veblen Dist. v. Multi-Cmty. Coop. Dairy" on Justia Law

Eric Robert was under a sentence of death entered by a circuit court judge and let the time to file an appeal expire. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in this case was statutorily obligated to review his sentence. The Court subsequently stayed Robert's execution and established a briefing schedule. Robert filed a motion to vacate those orders, arguing that the obligation to review his sentence did not grant the Court additional jurisdiction to stay his execution or to enter a briefing schedule. The Supreme Court denied the motion to vacate, holding that Robert's interpretation of S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27A-21, which included the argument that because Robert had not filed a notice of appeal the stay of proceedings contemplated by the statute was not available, was incorrect, as it would lead to an absurd result, flew in the face of the Court's authority, and was inconsistent with the constitutional analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court. View "State v. Robert" on Justia Law

In a disciplinary proceeding, the South Dakota Real Estate Commission found that Cheri St. Pierre, a licensed broker associate, had engaged in unprofessional conduct involving dishonesty. The Commission suspended her license for one year, but held the suspension in abeyance on conditions, including the payment of a penalty and repayment of the Commission's attorney's fees. The circuit court reversed the Commission's conditional suspension. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated all terms of the Commission's conditional suspension except the provision requiring the repayment of the Commission's attorney's fees, holding (1) St. Pierre engaged in unprofessional conduct within the meaning of S.D. Codified Laws 36-21A-71(15); (2) the Commission was without authority to conditionally order St. Pierre to reimburse the Commission for its attorney's fees expenses as part of its discipline; and (3) the Commission had authority to order St. Pierre to pay a $1,000 penalty as a condition of avoiding a suspension. View "St. Pierre v. State ex rel. S.D. Real Estate Comm'n" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Simon Torres was convicted of attempted murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. Torres appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres's motion in limine to exclude a cell phone video of the shooting and photographs of the victim's gunshot wounds, as Torres did not establish that the photographs were unfairly prejudicial or that the trial court incorrectly determined that the photographs' probative value outweighed this potential prejudice; and (2) did not violate Torres's due process rights during arraignment by failing to advise him that he would receive mandatory consecutive sentences if convicted of both attempted murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

Pooled Advocate Trust, Inc. (PATI), the managing corporation for a Medicaid pooled trust, brought a declaratory judgment action on Medicaid eligibility issues associated with the trust and named the South Dakota Department of Social Services (DSS) as a necessary party. The circuit court granted declaratory judgment for PATI. Fred and Gladys Matthews transferred assets to the pooled trust. When the Matthews subsequently applied for Medicaid long-term care benefits, DSS imposed a penalty period because they were over age sixty-five at the time of the transfers. PATI petitioned for further relief, seeking a declaration that DSS could not impose penalty periods for transfers made by pooled trust beneficiaries age sixty-five or older. The circuit court granted PATI's petition. The Matthews also appealed DSS's application of a penalty period, but an ALJ upheld the decision and another circuit court affirmed. DSS appealed the circuit court's order granting PATI's petition and the Matthews appealed the other circuit court's affirmance of the ALJ's ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the administrative appeal and reversed the declaratory judgment, holding that transfers of assets into pooled trusts by beneficiaries age sixty-five or older may be subject to a transfer penalty period for Medicaid eligibility purposes. View "In re Pooled Advocate Trust" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the circuit court terminated Mother's parental rights to Child. Mother was Native American and eligible to be enrolled in the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, but because she was not actually enrolled, an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) specialist for the Tribe concluded that Child was not eligible for enrollment. Since Child was not enrolled or eligible for enrollment, the court found ICWA inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in finding ICWA inapplicable, as Mother failed to show that Child was an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA; and (2) in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative available. View "In re L.S." on Justia Law

After six years of marriage, Jamie and Clayton Farlee divorced. In dividing the marital property, the circuit court ordered Clay to pay Jamie $48,000 to equalize the property division without indicating the total value of the assets awarded to Clay and Jamie. Jamie appealed, contending that the court erred in failing to classify disputed assets as marital or nonmarital and in failing to value certain marital property. The Supreme Court determined that because of uncertainties regarding the marital classification of all disputed property, and because the Court was unable to determine the circuit court's valuation of all marital property, the Court was unable to review whether the circuit court arrived at an equitable division. Consequently, the Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the property division after the entry of findings of fact and conclusions on the existing record clearly resolving the valuation and marital property issues. View "Farlee v. Farlee" on Justia Law

Without obtaining a search warrant, police attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to Elmer Zahn's vehicle. The GPS device enabled officers to track and record the speed, time, direction, and geographic location of Zahn's vehicle within five to ten feet for nearly a month. Police used the information they gathered to obtain a search warrant for two storage units that Zahn frequently visited. Officers subsequently recovered drug paraphernalia and drugs from one of the storage units. Before trial, the trial court denied Zahn's motion to suppress the evidence that the officers discovered during the execution of the search warrant. Zahn was subsequently convicted of several drug possession charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the attachment and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's activities over an extended period of time requires a search warrant; and (2) thus, the warrantless attachment and use of the GPS device to monitor Zahn's activities for nearly a month was unlawful, and the evidence obtained through the use of the GPS device should be suppressed. View "State v. Zahn" on Justia Law

Rabo Agrifinance and Rabo AgServices (collectively, Rabo) commenced a foreclosure action in 2009 on a mortgage granted by Connie and David Finneman (Finnemans) on 17,000 acres of farmland. Rabo commenced its action against Finnemans, Rock Creek Farms (RCF), and all parties who may have had an ownership or leashold interest in the land. Approximately forty-four defendants were listed in the complaint, including Ann and Michael Arnoldy (Arnoldys) and the U.S. as lienholders. The trial court eventually entered a decree of foreclosure in which it recognized RCF's owner's right of redemption. After a sheriff's sale, Ann Arnoldy redeemed from an assignee of the purchaser of the sheriff's certificate. The Arnoldys filed a motion to partially vacate the decree of foreclosure. The trial court granted the motion and vacated the decree of foreclosure recognizing RCF's redemption rights on the basis that RCF and its predecessors, Finnemans, waived those rights. RCF and Finnemans appealed. Arnoldys and the U.S. filed motions to dismiss the appeals for failure to serve the notice of appeal on the U.S. and a number of named parties. The Supreme Corurt dismissed Finnemans' and RCF's appeals for failure to serve their notices of appeal on each party to the action. View "Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Rock Creek Farms" on Justia Law

Two beneficiaries of the Moncur Revocable Family Trust petitioned the trial court to remove the co-trustees of the Trust on the grounds that the co-trustees violated various fiduciary duties. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding (1) the co-trustees did not violate their fiduciary duties by using a surrogate bidder to purchase Trust property at a public auction without obtaining permission from the beneficiaries, and by holding the Trust real property auction after an auction to dispose of personal property held in the Trust; and (2) the remaining allegations that the co-trustees breached their fiduciary duties were without merit. View "In re Estate of Moncur" on Justia Law