Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Spink County Board of Adjustment (Board) to deny the application filed by Arrow Farms RE, LLC for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), holding that there was no error.Preston Miles, who owned the land where Arrow Farms planned to build the CAFO, petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Board's decision was arbitrary and that several Board members were biased or held an unreasonable risk of bias. The circuit court affirmed the denial of the CUP, determining that none of the Board members had a disqualifying interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Miles was not entitled to relief on his allegations. View "Miles v. Spink County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court determining that Julie Niemitalo released her right to bring this post-divorce civil suit against Richard Seidel for conduct that occurred while the parties were separated and in the process of obtaining a divorce, holding that the language of the agreement did not preclude Julie's civil suit against Richard.Julie asserted that while the divorce action was pending Richard attacked her, bound her, and raped her. A jury found Richard guilty of all offenses. In Julie's pending civil suit she brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and civil battery. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Richard, determining that a divorce agreement between the parties was unambiguous and interpreted it to be a broad release and full and final settlement of all claims. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) the language in the agreement did not preclude Julie's lawsuit; and (2) res judicata did not apply. View "Niemitalo v. Seidel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence (DUI), abuse of or cruelty to a minor, reckless driving, and other offenses, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, by denying his motion for mistrial, and by erroneously instructing the jury regarding blood test refusal evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on his DUI, reckless driving, and abuse of or cruelty to a minor convictions; (2) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for mistrial; and (3) properly instructed the jury regarding the blood test refusal evidence. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the final order of the circuit court terminating Mother's parental rights to their minor child, holding that there was no error.The court issued a final dispositional order terminating Mother's parental rights over her child and granted the Department of Social Services (DSS) full adoptive custody of the child, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that DSS made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that DSS made active efforts to reunify L.N. with Mother; (2) did not clearly err in finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was the least restrictive alternative and in L.N.'s best interests; and (3) did not violate Mother's due process rights in denying her request to continue the final dispositional hearing. View "In re Interest of L.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the magistrate court's decision granting Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the magistrate court did not err in determining that the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment did not apply.After Sioux Falls dispatch received a call from a six-year-old boy saying that "daddy was being mean to mom" and that his dad was leaving to go to his car an officer followed the dad (Defendant) in his automobile. The officer initiated a traffic stop and, after further investigation, placed Defendant under arrest for driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer stopped his car without probable cause or a reasonable and articulable suspicion. The magistrate court granted the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer's actions were beyond the scope of a community caretaker, and therefore, Defendant's motion to suppress was properly granted. View "State v. Grassrope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying a petition seeking the appointment of a special administrator to pursue a wrongful death claim for Dale Dean Jones's estate, holding that the court abused its discretion by failing to address certain discovery motions before deciding the petition for special administrator.After Dale died intestate, the circuit court appointed Dale's wife, Lisa Jones, as his estate's personal representative. Douglas Jones and Jessica Jones, Dale's adult children, subsequently petitioned for the appointment of a special administrator to pursue a wrongful death claim for Dale's estate and further served discovery requests on Lisa seeking information pertaining to their petition. The court denied the petition for special administrator and determined that the discovery issues were moot. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court denied Doug and Jessica the opportunity to develop and present evidence that may be relevant to their petition. View "In re Estate of Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court committing D.S., a fourteen-year-old male, to the Department of Corrections (DOC), holding that the circuit court did not err.D.S. was adjudicated for possessing a stolen motor vehicle and aggravated eluding. After a dispositional hearing, the circuit court denied D.S.'s request for a probationary sentence based on an expert's opinion that D.S. could be treated in the community and granted the State's request that D.S. be placed with the DOC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in finding that there was no viable alternative to DOC commitment and that a DOC commitment was the least restrictive alternative in this case. View "In re D.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion to modify his sentence, holding that this Court did not have appellate jurisdiction over Appellant's appeal.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to a felony charge of intentional damage to property in exchange for the State's recommendation for a one-year suspended sentence to run concurrent with the sentence Appellant was already serving. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to six years in prison with one year suspended to run consecutive to the prior sentence. Appellant later filed a motion to modify his sentence based on his deteriorating health. The circuit court denied the request. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View "State v. Edelman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting Landlord's motion for summary judgment on each claim brought by Tenant, holding that the circuit court did not err.Tenant's minor son was attacked by a neighbor's dog near her home in Landlord's trailer court. Tenant brought this action against Landlord alleging two negligence theories and a breach of contract claim. The circuit court concluded that Landlord owed no legal duty to the child and, in any event, had no knowledge of the dog's alleged dangerous propensities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the dog's attack on the child was not actionable as to Landlord because there was no duty that would subject it to liability. View "Burgi v. East Winds Court, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment action against State Farm seeking payment of $2 million under Florida's uninsured motorist (UM) statute, holding that Florida law did not require State Farm to provide UM coverage.State Farm denied Plaintiffs UM coverage under their personal liability umbrella insurance policy after a motorcycle accident with an uninsured vehicle in South Dakota because the policy did not include UM coverage. Thereafter, Plaintiffs, who resided in Florida at the time of the accident, filed this declaratory action. The circuit court concluded that Florida law applied to the dispute, that State Farm did not violate Florida's UM statute, and that Plaintiffs were not entitled to UM coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Florida law did not require State Farm to provide UM coverage. View "Payne v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co." on Justia Law