Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ethanuel Holznagel and John Cutsinger were involved in a car accident, and Holznagel died from injuries sustained in the accident. Holznagel's parents (Plaintiffs), the representatives of his estate, brought a wrongful death action against Cutsinger and his employer (Defendants). A jury trial was held and a verdict was returned for Defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of Defendants' motion in limine excluding evidence of Cutsinger's marijuana use. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and granting Defendants' motion in limine. View "Estate of Holznagel v. Cutsinger" on Justia Law

Former students of a parochial school brought an action against the Congregation of the Priests of the Scared Heart, Inc. (PSHI) and other defendants, asserting claims of childhood sexual abuse. PSHI filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the former students failed to timely serve process on PSHI. The circuit court denied PSHI's motion to dismiss, finding (1) the former students substantially complied with the applicable service-of-process statute, and (2) service of process on PSHI was valid under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-31. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the former students timely served PSHI in accordance with South Dakota law, and the circuit court did not err in denying PSHI's motion to dismiss. View "R.B.O. v. The Congregation of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, Inc." on Justia Law

Former students of a parochial school brought an action against the Priests of the Sacred Heart (PSH) and other defendants, asserting claims of childhood sexual abuse. PSH filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds that the former students failed to timely serve process on PSH. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, finding (1) the former students substantially complied with the applicable service-of-process statute, and (2) service of process on PSH was valid under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-31. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying PSH's motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs failed to direct service to PSH and therefore failed to substantially comply with South Dakota's statutory notice requirements. View "R.B.O. v. Priests of the Sacred Heart" on Justia Law

Border States Paving was awarded the prime contract by the state DOT for a road project. Border States entered into a subcontract with Morris, Inc. for aggregates and work on the project. During work on the project, the DOT orally informed Morris that certain materials passed the soundness test. However, the materials actually failed. Ultimately, the paving was not completed by the seasonal deadline. When the project was completed the next year, the DOT paid Border States in full. Border States withheld several thousand dollars from Morris for costs associated with the project because it believed Morris defaulted in its contractual obligations under the subcontract. Morris brought suit against the DOT, alleging that the DOT breached its express and implied contractual obligations owed to Morris and that the DOT breached its implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing. The circuit court ruled in favor of Morris and awarded Morris damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the DOT's erroneous pass report proximately damaged Morris where there was no evidence in the record that this error alone caused the project to not get completed by the deadline. View "Morris, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff ranchers sued the State because of ongoing damage to their property from incursions of prairie dogs from public lands. Relying on multiple statutes requiring the State to manage and control prairie dog populations, Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, abatement, and damages. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered a trial on damages. When the case was reassigned, the State moved the new judge to reexamine the first judge's ruling. On reconsideration, the court vacated the first summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the second circuit court judge did not err in granting summary judgment for the State where the acts mandated by the statutes cited by Plaintiffs were discretionary and the State was protected from suit by sovereign immunity. View "Adrian v. Vonk" on Justia Law

Upon issuing a divorce decree, the trial court awarded Wife $500 per month in alimony for eight years and attorney's fees. In granting the alimony, the court considered Husband's social security and military disability payments but did not order attachment of those benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) given that Husband's social security disability benefits were subject to garnishment for alimony under federal law, the circuit court did not err in merely considering the benefits in determining whether an alimony award was appropriate; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wife demonstrated a need for and Husband's ability to pay alimony; and (3) considering Wife's resources and income and the complex legal issues in this case requiring briefing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Wife attorney's fees. View "Urbaniak v. Urbaniak" on Justia Law

After a one-month old was taken to the hospital with injuries consistent with non-accidental trauma, the State took custody of the child and started an abuse and neglect proceeding. Months later, the child was adjudicated abused or neglected. Following a period of State supervision, the child was returned to Mother, and the abuse and neglect action was dismissed as to both Mother and Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) declining to make separate findings regarding Mother's and Father's culpability; (2) finding the child abused or neglected under S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-2(1) and (3); and (3) declining to alternatively find that the child was abused or neglected under S.D. Codified Laws 26-8A-2(5). View "In re Matter of M.V." on Justia Law

Employee was prosecuted for theft from his Employer, but he was acquitted by a jury. Employee later commenced an action for malicious prosecution against Employer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer, concluding (1) Employee did not establish legal causation between Employer's report of theft and the criminal prosecution, and (2) Employee failed to establish the absence of probable cause to prosecute. Employee appealed, arguing that although the decision to prosecute was made by the state's attorney and grand jury, his claim was actionable because Employer did not give full and correct information to the authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err where (1) Employer's report was not the legal cause of the prosecution, and (2) Employee identified no facts suggesting that the prosecution was based on such information and that but for such information the decision to prosecute would not have been made by the prosecutor. View "Danielson v. Hess" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against several parties in the Catholic church for sexual abuse committed more than forty years earlier, averring that the abuse was perpetrated by a nun and a priest at a boarding school he attended. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the limitations period had expired on Plaintiff's claims because he failed to commence his action within three years of the abuse or within three years of the time he discovered or reasonably should have discovered his injury or condition was caused by the abuse in accordance with S.D. Codified Laws 26-10-25. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff never forgot the alleged abuse and was aware more than three years before commencing suit that his anger and hatred stemmed from this abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was on inquiry notice more than three years before he brought suit because circumstances, including Plaintiff's anger and hatred against the church from the time he was in eleventh grade and his leaving school because of the abuse, were sufficient to prompt a reasonably prudent person to seek out information regarding his injury or condition and its cause. View "Iron Wing v. Catholic Diocese" on Justia Law

When Rita Fix's son and daughter-in-law, Jeff and Marie, secured a loan from the First State Bank of Roscoe by obtaining a warranty deed for the property, the Bank assured Fix she could retain possession of the house. After Jeff and Marie conveyed the house and property to the Bank, the Bank sold the property and sought to remove Fix from the house. Fix sued the Bank for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Meanwhile, Fix, Jeff, and Marie were indicted on multiple criminal counts. The State attorney who brought the charges and who represented the Bank civilly offered to dismiss the criminal charges against Fix if she would deed the house back to the Bank. Fix then amended her complaint to include a claim of abuse of process against the Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment against Fix on her IIED claim. A jury then returned a verdict finding the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages to Fix. The Supreme Court reversed on the abuse of process claim, holding that the trial court provided the jury with the incorrect legal standard for the recovery of emotional damages. Remanded for a new trial. View "Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe" on Justia Law