Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Walter Henderson brought a quiet title action to claim ownership of an undivided thirty percent interest in a mineral estate. Following a court trial, which confirmed Walter's ownership of the mineral interest in fee, Walter's half-sister, Susan Henderson, individually and as representative of her deceased mother, Dora Henderson, appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that Walter's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-13(1) and 15-3-2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court correctly quieted title in Walter's favor and concluded that Walter was the owner of the thirty percent mineral interest described in an agreement between Walter and his father. View "Estate of Henderson v. Estate of Henderson" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty but mentally ill to ten counts of grand theft. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw her guilty but mentally ill pleas prior to sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw her pleas of guilty but mentally ill; (2) Defendant's due process rights were not violated when she was denied the opportunity to review and comment on the entire presentence investigation report prior to sentencing; (3) Defendant's claim that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel was not ripe for review on direct appeal; and (4) Defendant's sentence was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Lamar Advertising submitted applications to Rapid City for sign building permits, which would allow Lamar to convert six traditional billboards to digital signs. The City denied Lamar's applications, finding that a conditional use permit was required to alter an existing off-premises sign. Lamar petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari, arguing (1) the City, in at least 100 prior instances, allowed Lamar to alter existing signs without first obtaining a conditional use permit, and therefore, the City should be estopped from now requiring a conditional use permit; and (2) the City's denial was beyond its jurisdiction as an effort to improperly regulate digital billboards in contravention of existing ordinances. The circuit court denied Lamar's petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City acted in an irregular pursuit of its authority when it denied Lamar's six applications for sign building permits. View "Lamar Adver. of S.D., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a child out of wedlock. The parents had agreed that Mother would retain physical custody of the child and Father would exercise visitation for one week every other month. This arrangement continued until Father petitioned for a change of custody. The circuit court awarded joint legal custody to both parents and primary physical custody to Father. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding (1) Mother's mental health condition, when untreated, made her unable to care for the child; (2) Mother's relationships negatively impacted the child; (3) Father had developed a bond with the child and could meet the child's needs; and (4) Father's wife's relationship with the child was not inappropriate, harmful, or otherwise negative. Lastly, the court did not impose a higher burden on Mother to prove a substantial change in circumstances before she could receive custody. View "Benson v. Loffelmacher" on Justia Law

Bradley DeBoer sued Tara DeBoer for divorce. During the parties' marriage, the Texas Department of State Health Services issued an amended birth certificate naming Bradley as the father of Taiton, the child Tara had from a prior relationship. Tara counterclaimed for custody and support of Taiton. The circuit court granted Tara custody of Taiton but denied her request for child support. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court erred in concluding Bradley was not Taiton's presumed father under Texas law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 1260.207(a)(4), a rebuttable presumption of paternity arose because Bradley voluntarily asserted he was Taiton's biological father and the assertion was in a record filed with the bureau of vital statistics; (2) under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 160.607(b) the presumption of paternity was not rebutted; and (3) although Bradley was not Taiton's biological father, Bradley was Taiton's parent for purposes of child support. Remanded. View "DeBoer v. DeBoer" on Justia Law