Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court dismissing Defendant's application for habeas corpus, holding that the court did not err.A jury convicted Defendant of fourteen sex offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process right to jury unanimity was denied and that the prosecutor's remarks during opening statement denied him a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed an application for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on the errors he alleged on appeal. The habeas court dismissed the application. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was precluded from demonstrating prejudice for Strickland purposes in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding; and (2) the habeas court properly dismissed Defendant's amended application for a writ of habeas corpus on summary judgment. View "Neels v. Dooley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court dismissing Appellant's application for habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree rape. On appeal, Defendant asserted that plain error occurred in the prosecutor's alleged vouching of the victim during closing argument. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed an application for habeas corpus relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) based, in part, on trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's alleged misconduct. The habeas court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the habeas court properly dismissed Defendant's IAC claim related to the prosecutor's improper vouching was res judicata; and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's remaining IAC claim. View "Harris v. Fluke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the circuit court's grant of First National Bank's (FNB) motion for summary judgment regarding FNB's foreclosure and replevin claims against Justin and Sharmin Inghram and denying FNB's request to dismiss the Inghrams' counterclaim for fraud, holding that the certification order in this case failed to satisfy Rule 54(b) requirements.The circuit court held that the Inghrams failed properly to resist FNB's summary judgment motion on its foreclosure and replevin claims and denied summary judgment on one of the Inghrams' counterclaims. After the court issued its final order and judgment, the Inghrams appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal based on the circuit court's order for Rule 54(b) certification, holding that the the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying the foreclosure and replevin claims as a final judgment under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-54(b). View "First National Bank v. Inghram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment entered by the circuit court in favor of Defendant, Rapid City, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for negligence, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff was riding her bicycle near the curb on a street in Rapid City when when her front tire fell through a storm drain grate she was riding over (grate four), causing her to crash and suffer a spinal cord injury. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the City was negligent for failing to repair a modified and subsequently damaged grate four. The circuit court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that grate four was in a damaged condition on the day of her accident; and (2) S.D. Codified Laws 31-32-10 does not provide a remedy against a governmental entity for known dangerous design defects on a highway or street. View "Godbe v. City Of Rapid City" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Bonnie London, the mother of person who shot plaintiff Sergeant John Koening of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, based on the events leading up to the shooting, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment.In underlying criminal case, Donald was convicted of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer for shooting and injuring Koening. Plaintiffs - Sergeant Koening and his wife - brought negligence and loss of consortium claims against Donald and Bonnie. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bonnie, concluding that she did not owe a legal duty to control or supervise Donald, an adult, and should not be subject to liability for his criminal conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Bonnie owed no duty to Sergeant Koening under a general negligence theory because she was not in a special relationship with Donald; and (2) Bonnie was not subject to a legal duty based upon her own conduct because it did not create a foreseeable high risk of harm. View "Koenig v. London" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against her father-in-law (Defendant) alleging child sex abuse, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment.Because Plaintiff filed her amended complaint more than three years after she discovered or reasonably should have discovered her injury and its cause, the circuit court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the child sex abuse claim as untimely under S.D. Codified Laws 26-10-25. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant did not presumptively establish that Plaintiff instituted her child sex abuse action beyond the limitation period in section 26-10-25. View "Syrstad v. Syrstad" on Justia Law