Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

An Arizona couple was injured on their motorcycle by another biker. The accident occurred in South Dakota. Because the other motorcyclist left the scene, the couple sought uninsured motorist benefits from their insurer. The couple's policy was issued in Arizona for a motorcycle registered and principally garaged in Arizona. The insurer tendered the policy's full uninsured motorist benefits of $15,000 per person. However, the couple would have recovered $25,000 per person in South Dakota had they been able to obtain the other biker's liability insurance. The circuit court declared that the terms of the Arizona insurance policy, rather than South Dakota law, governed the applicable coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that altering the terms of the parties' contracts in these circumstances was not supported by law. View "Milinkovich v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Shirley Murphy (Mrs. Murphy), who was ninety years old at the time of this action, had four adult daughters, Dee, Shirley, Claudia, and Mary (collectively, Daughters). In May 2012, Claudia obtained an appointment as Mrs. Murphy's temporary guardian and conservator. Both Claudia and Shirley petitioned to serve as permanent guardian and conservator. After a trial, the circuit court appointed Claudia permanent guardian and conservator. On September 5, 2012, notice of entry of the order appointing Claudia was served on Daughters. On October 10, 2012, Shirley served notice of her appeal by mail on Mrs. Murphy and Daughters. Claudia moved to dismiss Shirley's appeal as untimely. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shirley failed to timely serve her notice of appeal on all the parties to the action, and her appeal must be dismissed. View "In re Guardianship of Murphy" on Justia Law

Curley Haisch and his wife Rose owned Mulehead Ranch. Joe Duling was the Haisches' financial advisor as well as a realtor and broker. When Curley was ninety years old, he decided to sell the ranch and signed a listing agreement with Joe. Approximately one year later, Joe suggested that Curley and Rose form a charitable remainder trust (Trust) into which the ranch and chattels could be gifted. Curley and Rose executed the Trust, to which the Ranch was transferred. The Trustee then sold the Ranch to Joe and Lynne Duling. Later, it was discovered that the Trust contained multiple defects. The Trustee brought suit against the Dulings, their businesses, and the Mulehead Ranch on behalf of the Trust and the Haisches. The complaint alleged negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duties. A jury found in favor of the Trust awarded Plaintiffs $1,568,200, including punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on damages, holding (1) the circuit court erred in failing to give a proper instruction on the statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiffs' claims for future tax consequences related to the defects in the Trust; and (2) the court did not err in the remainder of its judgment. View "Bailey v. Duling" on Justia Law

The City of Rapid City applied a deicer to the streets adjacent to property owned by the Ruperts. The Ruperts sued the City, claiming that the deicer ran onto their property and destroyed several pine trees. The trial court granted the Ruperts' motion for summary judgment on their inverse condemnation claim, and a jury awarded the Ruperts $126,530 to compensate them for the damage to their property. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Ruperts on their inverse condemnation claim, but the measure of damages used at trial for purposes of calculating the just compensation award was erroneous; (2) the trial court properly denied the Ruperts' request for attorney fees; and (3) the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on the Ruperts' claims of negligence and trespass did not constitute reversible error. Remanded for a new trial on damages. View "Rupert v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

When Peggy Nelson was ninety-one years old, she executed a durable power of attorney giving John Rice numerous powers over her personal and financial affairs. When Peggy was ninety-four years old, her niece and nephew petitioned the circuit court to appoint a guardian and conservator for Peggy and her estate, alleging that Rice was plundering Peggy's estate by misuse of the power of attorney. The circuit court subsequently appointed a temporary emergency guardian and conservator for Peggy to protect her personal and financial interests. After the circuit court extended the appointment of the temporary emergency guardian and conservator, Rice requested the court to set aside its previous orders as void due to the court's failure to follow regular procedures in the proceeding. The court denied Rice's petition. Rice appealed, contending that the court's failure to follow the mandates of the South Dakota Guardianship and Conservatorship Act extinguished the court's jurisdiction to appoint the guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the matter for the court to fulfill the requirements of the Act, including its continued administration of the guardianship and conservatorship. View "In re Guardianship of Nelson" on Justia Law

In 2010, Husband sought a divorce from Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court granted the divorce. In its judgment and decree of divorce, the trial court denied Wife's request to relocate to New York City with the couple's two minor children, granted Husband and Wife joint legal and physical custody of the children, implemented a custody schedule, ordered Husband to pay Wife child support, resolved disputed property issues, and denied Wife's request for attorney fees. Wife appealed several the trial court's determinations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's decisions as to custody, child support, property division, and attorney fees were not an abuse of discretion. View "Schieffer v. Schieffer" on Justia Law

Hyperion Refining, LLC applied for an air quality permit to begin construction of a proposed petroleum refinery and power plant. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued the permit, and the Board of Minerals and Environment (Board) approved DENR's issuance of the permit. Three citizens appealed the issuance of the permit to the circuit court. Hyperion also appealed a permit condition that limited the amount of carbon monoxide that could be emitted from the proposed facility. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision in all respects. The citizens and Hyperion appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board did not abuse its discretion in issuing the air quality permit; and (2) the Board did not clearly err in determining the carbon monoxide limit. View "In re Application of Hyperion Refining, LLC" on Justia Law

After undergoing surgery for a heart valve replacement, Kathy Young died. Kathy's husband, Greg Oury, brought this medical malpractice suit on behalf of Kathy's estate, alleging that the doctor who performed the surgery (Doctor) (1) was negligent in recommending the specific procedure that he used in the surgery, the Ross procedure; and (2) failed to obtain Kathy's informed consent because he did not tell her that the Ross procedure was controversial and that Kathy was not a good candidate for the procedure. During the trial, Doctor displayed a chart indicating patient survival rates of various valve replacement surgeries. The court later deemed inadmissible the chart and Doctor's related testimony because the chart had not been disclosed before trial and because the admission lacked foundational support. The jury returned a verdict for Doctor. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the circuit court's erroneous admission of Doctor's chart and testimony allowed the jury to hear unsupported and surprise evidence directly related to the issue of informed consent, and there being no clear and timely curative instruction, the evidence in all probability prejudicially influenced the jury in its decision. View "Young v. Oury" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff's surgeon, Dr. Krouse, performed wrist surgery on Plaintiff's left wrist, Plaintiff visited another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Curd, complaining of continuing pain. Dr. Curd concluded that another surgery was necessary to remove the metal plate and screws implanted by Dr. Krouse. After the surgery was performed, Plaintiff brought suit for medical malpractice against Dr. Krouse and the hospital in which she was treated during her first surgery. A jury returned a verdict for Dr. Krouse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) excluding another doctor's previously undisclosed opinion that Dr. Krouse breached the standard of care; and (2) rejecting Plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on res ipsa loquitor. View "Thompson v. Avera Queen of Peace Hosp." on Justia Law