Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Allison Marie and James (Jim) Joseph Marko married on September 26, 1998. Three children were born of the marriage. Allison was granted a divorce from Jim on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Jim's visitation with his children was conditioned on his having absolutely no contact with his mistress "Emmy" when the children were in his presence. Allison received sole custody of the children. In this divorce appeal, Jim asserted that the trial judge (1) should have disqualified himself because the judge presided over another case in which Emmy had been "enmeshed"; (2) abused his discretion in restricting visitation; and (3) erred in granting the Allison Marie a divorce on grounds of extreme mental cruelty. Finding no merit to any of Jim's issues on appeal and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Marko v. Marko" on Justia Law

Claimant-Appellant Megan Peterson worked at a nursing home owned by The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (Good Samaritan). Claimant alleged that she sustained a work-related injury to her back when assisting a resident with a wheelchair. Good Samaritan denied the claim. Two doctors, who testified by deposition, disagreed whether Claimant suffered a work-related injury and whether employment was a major contributing cause of her back condition. The Department of Labor (Department), after considering the depositions and Claimant's medical records, determined that she failed to prove she sustained a compensable work-related injury. The Department also determined that Claimant failed to prove that her employment remained a major contributing cause of her condition and need for treatment. The circuit court affirmed. On de novo review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court concluded that one of the doctor's opinions was sufficient to meet Claimant's burden of proving that her employment caused a work-related injury and that was and remained a major contributing cause of her back condition and need for treatment. View "Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Adam Olson entered into a plea agreement with the State, under the terms of which he pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft and one count of aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer. Olson also admitted to being a habitual offender. In addition, Olson pleaded guilty to an additional count of grand theft, which the State charged him with, in a separate Information. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The circuit court denied his motion and sentenced him to fifteen years for the grand theft conviction and two years for the aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer conviction. Defendant's sentence for aggravated eluding of a law enforcement officer was to run consecutive to his sentence for grand theft. The court also sentenced Defendant to serve ten years for the grand theft conviction that was charged in the separate Information. This sentence was to be served consecutive to his other sentences. Defendant appealed, raising: (1) whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas; (2) whether Defendant's sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion nor a violation of Defendant's constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "South Dakota v. Olson" on Justia Law

The Surgical Institute of South Dakota, P.C. filed suit against Dr. Matthew Sorrell who was formerly employed by the practice. The practice alleged breach of contract against the physician for failing to give required notice of resignation and breach of an implied contract resulting in unjust enrichment. The implied contract claim was dismissed by summary judgment; a jury found the physician did not breach the contract. The practice timely appealed the dismissal of its implied contract claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the practice's motion for a new trial. Additionally, the Court found that the practice did not show a "clear abuse of discretion" in excluding certain evidence from trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Surgical Institute of South Dakota, PC v. Sorrell" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Leonard Alan Toohey guilty of first degree rape of a child. On appeal, he asserts that the child victim was not available for cross-examination as required under the Confrontation Clause, that the circuit court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of other acts, and that there was insufficient evidence to support proof of penetration. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that "rational jurors could [have found] proof of penetration" beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction. View "South Dakota v. Toohey" on Justia Law

M.A.S. (Father) appealed the termination of his parental rights to P.S.E. At the time P.S.E. was removed from Mother’s care, Father lived in California and did not know he had a child in South Dakota. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied to these proceedings because P.S.E. was an enrolled member of the Fort Peck Sioux Tribe. Father argued on appeal that the Department of Social Services (DSS) did not make active efforts to reunite the Indian family and that any efforts made were successful. Because the evidence presented shows that DSS provided active and reasonable, though abbreviated, efforts to place P.S.E. with Father, and those efforts were unsuccessful, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights. View "In the interest of P.S.E." on Justia Law

Defendant Paul Wentzlaff, an insurance agent, stole thousands of dollars from Harvey Severson, an elderly man who asked Defendant to help manage his financial affairs. Plaintiff Donald Hass, as personal representative for Severson’s estate, sued Defendant and two insurance companies who appointed Defendant as an agent, North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American) and Allianz Life Insurance of North America (Allianz). Hass and North American each moved for summary judgment and Allianz joined North American’s motion. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the insurance companies’ motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the insurance companies were vicariously liable for Defendant's acts. Based on undisputed material facts on the record in this case, the Supreme Court found that Defendant Wentzlaff was not acting within the scope of his employment when he stole money from Severson, and thus, as a matter of law, North American and Allianz were not vicariously liable for his acts. The Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies. View "Hass v. Wentzlaff" on Justia Law

Michael Manuel, the sole owner of Toner Plus, Inc., closed his business on May 30, 2009. Manuel then filed a personal claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor determined that Manuel was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits because he "voluntarily" dissolved his business and did not have "good cause" for doing so under S.D. Codified Laws 61-6-13 to -13.1 The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ALJ did not err in finding the Department met its burden of showing Manuel's decision to terminate his employment with Toner Plus was voluntary; and (2) the Court did not need to address whether Manuel had "good cause" for voluntarily terminating his employment. View "Manuel v. Toner Plus, Inc." on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who were never married, had one child, N.B. After Mother and Father ended their relationship, Mother retained custody of N.B. Mother subsequently entered into another romantic relationship, which produced N.B.'s half-sister, A.K. Later, Father filed an action requesting the trial court to grant him custody of N.B. The trial court granted Father's request, reasoning that Father would provide N.B. with heightened stability. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that compelling circumstances warranted the separation of siblings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly considered the relevant factors in making its custody determination, and its finding that compelling reasons existed to separate N.B. from her half-sibling was not clearly erroneous; and (2) therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Father. View "Beaulieu v. Birdsbill" on Justia Law

Jeannine and Donald Barton divorced, and the circuit court awarded Jeannine permanent alimony, a monetary judgment, and attorney fees. After Donald filed for bankruptcy, the court issued an order clarifying the nature of the monetary judgment. Jeannine and Donald later entered into a settlement agreement regarding the judgment. The agreement, which was not incorporated into the divorce decree, resolved a dispute regarding the judgment and released all present and future claims between the parties. Nine years later, Jeannine moved to modify alimony. The circuit court granted the motion after noting that Donald's financial situation had changed and (1) increased Jeannine's monthly alimony award, and (2) extended Donald's alimony obligation beyond Donald's death. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court's findings when it considered modification did not support a change in circumstances justifying a modification of alimony, as the original divorce decree was not predicated solely on Donald's ability to pay but also took into account Jeannine's need. View "Barton v. Barton" on Justia Law