Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who owned a landlocked parcel of land, brought suit against Defendant, claiming they had an implied easement over Defendant's land. The circuit court granted judgment for Plaintiffs, concluding that an easement implied from prior use existed. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, Plaintiffs argued for a common law implied easement by necessity. The circuit court found three separate grounds that prevented Plaintiffs from being entitled to an implied easement by necessity: (1) the requirements for an implied easement by necessity were not met, (2) an adequate remedy at law barred equitable relief, and (3) South Dakota's Marketable Title Act (SDMTA) barred the action because the severance occurred outside SDMTA's twenty-two year provision. The Supreme Court affirmed on the ground that SDMTA barred Plaintiffs' action.View "Springer v. Cahoy" on Justia Law

Appellant suffered work-related injuries in 2000 and received workers' compensation benefits until 2004. Appellant filed another first report of injury in 2009 based on the same injuries. Employer denied benefits. Appellant filed a petition for rehearing. The Department of Labor & Regulation, Division of Labor & Management found that S.D. Codified Laws 62-7-35.1 barred Appellant's second claim for workers' compensation benefits because more than three years had passed between the date of the last payment of benefits and the date Appellant filed a written petition for a hearing. The circuit court affirmed. Appellant appealed, arguing section 62-7-35.1 should not apply to this case because his injuries were from cumulative trauma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the cumulative trauma doctrine did not change section 62-7-35.1's application to this case because the cumulative trauma doctrine applies to the date of injury, which is irrelevant to section 62-7-35.1. View "Schuelke v. Belle Fourche Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and driving while having a 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the blood. Appellant appealed in part the trial court's admission of certain testimony regarding the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, which the arresting officer conducted during the stop of Appellant's vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) even if the trial court erred in allowing the arresting officer to testify about the reliability of HGN testing and the correlation between an individual's performance on an HGN test and the individual's blood alcohol content, the error was harmless; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal because there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have convicted Appellant of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt.View "State v. Yuel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former Jerauld County State's Attorney, brought a quo warranto action seeking to oust Defendant, the newly-elected State's Attorney, claiming Defendant did not qualify for and was not entitled to the office of Jerauld County State's Attorney. The circuit court denied relief, concluding that Defendant was the rightful holder of the office and was legally entitled to it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because there was no evidence that Defendant usurped, intruded into, unlawfully held, or exercised the public office of Jerauld County State's Attorney, the circuit court correctly denied quo warranto relief. View "Bridgman v. Koch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendant, a medical facility, for medical malpractice after a surgery on Plaintiff that was aborted. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant, finding that Plaintiff did not suffer damages legally caused by Defendant's negligence. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, asserting, among other things, that the jury clearly erred in awarding no damages for the incisions that were made in the course of the aborted surgery. The circuit court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because there was competent evidence supporting the jury's verdict in favor of Defendant on the issue of damages relating to Plaintiff's subsequent cardiac problems, the circuit court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on the question of causation and damages relating to Plaintiff's need for a pacemaker and her subsequent medical problems; and (2) the circuit court erred in granting a new trial on Plaintiff's claim for incisional pain because Plaintiff's claim for damages for incisional pain was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Lewis v. Sanford Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

In 1980, Joseph and C. Elaine Lingscheit transferred 240 acres in fee simple to their seven children. In 2001, the Lingscheits executed a warranty deed conveying in fee simple 240 acres to their son, Brian. The 2001 deed, however, mistakenly conveyed 80 acres that had previously been conveyed to all seven children. The Lingscheits held only a life estate interest in these 80 acres. During the probate proceedings, the children learned their parents had twice transferred the 80-acre tract of land and that their parents owned, in fee simple, a different 80-acre tract of land that was never transferred. Two siblings, Brian and Bradley, brought suit against the remaining siblings asking the circuit court to reform and revise the 2001 warranty deed, contending that the Lingscheits intended to convey to Brian the 80 acres owned by the Lingscheits in fee simple. The trial court declined to reform the 2001 deed and ruled that this deed transferred to Brian a life estate interest in 80 acres. The SupremeCourt affirmed, holding that Brian did not present clear and convincing evidence that the 2001 deed failed to express the intent of the Lingscheits. View "Hines v. Hines" on Justia Law

Jesse and Elizabeth, who were married with two children, were divorced in 2009. The divorce decree awarded primary physical custody of the children to Elizabeth and granted visitation to Jesse. After Elizabeth remarried and her husband accepted a job in California, Elizabeth filed a motion to relocate. The circuit court determined that it was in the best interests of the children to move to California and awarded Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) admitting and relying on certain evidence in making its determination; (2) determining that relocation was in the best interests of the children; and (3) awarding Elizabeth $3,500 in attorney fees.View "Brosnan v. Brosnan" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). A part two information alleged that Defendant had two previous DUI convictions within the last ten years, including one in 2011. Defendant filed a motion to strike the 2011 conviction from the part two information, claiming that his guilty plea was invalid because he was not fully advised that he would waive his right to a jury trial, right to confrontation, and right against self-incrimination. The circuit court agreed with Defendant and ordered that the 2011 conviction be stricken from the part two information. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it struck Defendant's 2011 conviction from the part two information, as the record affirmatively showed that Defendant was fully advised of his rights under Boykin v. Alabama during his 2011 conviction and intelligently and voluntarily waived those rights.View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Paul Nelson Farm (“Appellee”) operated an all-inclusive hunting lodge in South Dakota. The Department of Revenue and Regulation conducted an audit on Appellee and determined that Appellee owed unpaid use tax on food, beverages, and ammunition. Appellee argued that it was not required to pay use tax on those items because the food, beverages, and ammunition were not purchased for end use by Appellee but were instead purchased for resale to hunting lodge customers in Appellee’s ordinary course of business. The circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding that Appellee was not required to remit use tax on the food but was required to remit use tax on the beverages and ammunition. The Supreme Court held that use tax was not properly imposed on any of the goods because the items were purchased for resale to Appellee’s customers in the regular course of business, and therefore, Appellee’s control and possession of the items did not constitute “use” as defined by S.D. Codified Laws 10-46-1(17). View "Paul Nelson Farm v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

While responding to an emergency, Tim Bauman, a volunteer firefighter for the Chester Fire Department, activated his hazard lights and sped toward the fire station. While crossing an intersection, Bauman’s vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Areyman Gabriel. Both Gabriel and his passenger were injured. Gabriel sued Bauman and Chester Fire, alleging that Bauman’s conduct was willful, wanton, and reckless and that Chester Fire negligently trained Bauman and inadequately equipped Bauman’s vehicle. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it used the Supreme Court’s definition of “willful and wanton misconduct” from South Dakota’s repealed guest statute to rule as a matter of law that Bauman did not act willfully, wantonly, or recklessly; (2) the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for Bauman; and (3) the circuit court erred when it granted summary judgment to Chester Fire on Gabriel’s negligent training and equipment claims based on the immunity in S.D. Codified Laws 20-9-4.1. View "Gabriel v. Bauman" on Justia Law