Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Father was the biological father of three sons and one daughter and the stepfather of two stepdaughters. Upon allegations that Father raped one of his stepdaughters, the children were taken into the custody of the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS subsequently filed a petition alleging that the children were abused or neglected. Ultimately, the circuit court terminated Father's parental rights to all of his biological children. Father appealed, arguing that DSS did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that termination of his parental rights was not the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based upon the circumstances, DSS actively attempted to reunify the family, but those efforts were unsuccessful; and (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that the least restrictive alternative commensurate with the best interests of the children was termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re Interest of S.H.E." on Justia Law

While driving a car owned by her divorced parents, Plaintiff was hit and injured by an uninsured drunk driver. Plaintiff's father's policy specifically covered Plaintiff's car and paid Plaintiff $100,000 in uninsured motorist benefits. This amount did not fully compensate Plaintiff for her injuries, however, and Plaintiff filed a claim under her mother's policy with Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska (Insurer). The policy did not specifically cover Plaintiff's car but covered Plaintiff as an insured. Farmers denied Plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist benefits under an "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion in its policy. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action seeking a declaration that the "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion was void and that she was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits from Farmers. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers, concluding that the exclusion was valid and enforceable in relation to uninsured motorist coverage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court incorrectly applied the law when it used the Supreme Court's statements in previous cases to conclude that the exclusion was valid and enforceable under S.D. Codified Laws 58-11-9; and (2) the "owned-but-not-insured" exclusion was void in this case. View "Wheeler v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Neb." on Justia Law

In this custody dispute between the non-married parents of two minor children, the maternal grandparents were permitted to join/intervene. After a trial, the circuit court awarded legal and physical custody to the grandparents and visitation to the father. The father appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grandparents' joinder/intervention, as the grandparents made a sufficient showing for joinder/intervention; (2) reversed the custody award, holding that the circuit court erred in awarding the grandparents custody because the grandparents did not meet their evidentiary burden, and the Court could not consider the court's findings regarding the best interests of the children; and (3) remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reconsideration of the issue of attorney's fees. View "Veldheer v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged separately with DUI and distribution of a controlled substance. A plea agreement was reached in both cases. The state's attorney's office agreed to recommend that the DUI sentence run concurrent to the sentence imposed for the distribution charge. At Defendant's sentencing hearing, the attorney general's office initially argued against running the sentences concurrently. The assistant attorney general, however, when made aware of the plea agreement, withdrew his argument against concurrent sentences. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to six years for the DUI and five years for the distribution charge, the sentences to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State breached the plea agreement by initially arguing against concurrent sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences because Defendant did not contemporaneously object to the alleged violation of the plea agreement and because Defendant did not establish that the error caused him prejudice. View "State v. Olvera" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and found guilty of aggravated child abuse. The charges stemmed from the bruising found on the face of Defendant's fiancee's daughter, six-year-old K.N., while K.N. was at school. Defendant appealed, arguing that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, as evidence was presented from which the jury could find that Defendant's grabbing and squeezing of K.N.'s face were enough to cause extensive bruising across K.N.'s face and neck and a subconjunctival hemorrhage in one of her eyes, and that Defendant's actions were not permissible discipline. View "State v. Morgan" on Justia Law

After the parties' divorce, Appellee filed a petition for a domestic abuse protection order from Appellant. The trial court granted the protection order for one year and excluded Appellant from Appellee's residence and from coming within 300 feet of her and her daughter. The order further excluded Appellant from the high school and Boys and Girls Club. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) at the hearing on this matter, the trial court improperly restricted Appellant's cross-examination of Appellee on any issues of domestic violence beyond Appellant's e-mails; and (2) the trial court erred in failing to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to meaningfully review whether the protection order was appropriately granted. View "Castano v. Ishol" on Justia Law

Claimant was injured on a job site while working in North Dakota for the North Dakota office of Hamm & Phillips Service Company. Claimant worked about sixty percent of the time in North Dakota and about thirty-five percent of the time in South Dakota and lived in South Dakota. Claimant filed for and received benefits through North Dakota's workers' compensation agency, but after about nine months of benefits, he received a benefit denial notification from the agency. Claimant then filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in South Dakota. While awaiting adjudication of that claim, Claimant died of causes unrelated to his injury. His wife (Wife) sought to substitute herself as a party in the South Dakota claim. The South Dakota Department of Labor granted Wife's motion to substitute but dismissed the claim for lack of statutory jurisdiction. The circuit court reversed the motion to substitute Sharon and affirmed the dismissal for lack of statutory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's dismissal for lack of statutory jurisdiction because South Dakota was not the location of the employment relationship; and (2) did not reach the issue of substitution. View "Knapp v. Hamm & Phillips" on Justia Law

Daniel Huffaker and Jeffrey Huffaker were granted a divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. The trial court awarded Danielle primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children and ordered Jeffrey to pay Danielle $1,310 per month as child support. The trial court also distributed the marital property and ordered the parties to pay their own attorney fees. Danielle appealed, arguing, in part, that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to value the marital property before distributing it and in failing to distribute the marital property equitably. The Supreme Court reversed on property valuation and distribution issues, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign values to the parties' property before distributing it; and (2) because the trial court failed to value the property and failed to articulate its rationale for the disproportionate property division, the Court was incapable of reviewing whether the trial court's division of property was equitable. Remanded. View "Huffaker v. Huffaker" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of arson in connection with a fire in her apartment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and by excluding an out-of-court statement made by her estranged sister. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the existing court record did not establish a manifest usurpation of Defendant's constitutional rights, her ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not ripe for review; and (2) the out-of-court statement was inadmissible hearsay, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the statement. View "State v. Hannemann" on Justia Law

Jorgensen Farms sued Country Pride Cooperative alleging that Country Pride sold Jorgensen fertilizer contaminated with rye, damaging its 2007 wheat crop. Country Pride settled with Jorgensen but preserved its claims against third-party defendants Agriliance, Agrium, and Dakota Gasification Company (Dakota Gas). Country Pride brought claims against the third-party defendants alleging that, if Jorgensen proved the fertilizer it purchased from Country Pride was contaminated, the contamination must have occurred in the chain of fertilizer distribution. The trial court granted the third-party defendants' motions for summary judgment, reasoning that Country Pride failed to provide specific facts upon which a jury could find a party responsible without resorting to speculation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Agriliance was not liable as a matter of law under either a breach of contract or negligence theory; (2) Country Pride's claims against Agrium were barred by Country Pride's failure to give notice, the economic loss doctrine, and the statute of limitations; and (3) Dakota Gas did not have a duty to inspect the vehicles used by trucking company for delivery. View "Jorgensen Farms, Inc. v. Country Pride Coop., Inc." on Justia Law