Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the decision of the circuit court granting partial summary judgment to Plaintiff on his complaint seeking an injunction and restraining order against Plowboy, LLC requiring Plowboy to remove two gates placed across a section-line highway, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting partial summary judgment but erred in directing removal of the gates within twenty days.In his complaint, Plaintiff argued that the gates were unlawful obstructions across a section-line highway. The circuit court concluded that Defendant failed to establish that the road was unimproved, and therefore, the gates must be removed. The court then ordered Defendant to remove the gates within twenty days. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in granting partial summary judgment; but (2) the circuit court did not certify its ruling as a final judgment, and therefore, the circuit court was unable to order the removal of the gates within twenty days. View "Patterson v. Plowboy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, robbery, and additional offenses, holding that the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant's objection to the inclusion of a jury instruction regarding attempted robbery or by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion to arrest judgment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal for second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter, holding that the convictions were supported by the evidence; and (2) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to arrest judgment. View "State v. Frias" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of three felony drug offenses in connection with the sale of methamphetamine to a confidential informant, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial and that Defendant's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.After a two-day trial, Defendant was convicted of three drug-related offenses. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for the possession and distribution counts, to run concurrently to each other and to the sentences he was serving, and to twenty-five years for the offense of distribution in a drug free zone, to run consecutively to his other sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit certain evidence proffered by Defendant; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (3) Defendant's sentence was neither grossly disproportionate to his crimes nor cruel and unusual. View "State v. Shelton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion for order to show cause why Appellee was not in contempt of the circuit court's judgment and decree of divorce, holding that the circuit court erred when it found that Appellee was not in contempt of court because she was not personally served with the judgment.The circuit court found that Appellee did not comply with a court order but that she could not be found in contempt because she was not given proper notice of the order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the issue raised on appeal was not moot; and (2) the circuit court clearly erred when it found that Appellee was not in contempt of the order at issue because she did not have knowledge of the contents of the judgment and decree of divorce. View "Metzger v. Metzger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in connection with his plea of guilty to aiding and abetting first-degree manslaughter, holding that Defendant's sentence of life without parole was neither an abuse of discretion nor gross disproportionality.On appeal, Defendant challenged his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole; and (2) the circuit court's sentence did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Klinetobe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for vehicular homicide and driving under the influence, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the circuit court's error in denying Defendant's motion to suppress was harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred when it denied her motion to suppress a statement that she made to law enforcement officers at the hospital and when it denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by denying Defendant's suppression motion, but the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against her; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Angle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court reversing the judgment of the Department of Public Safety ordering Appellee's commercial driving privileges to be disqualified for one year, holding that commercial driver's license (CDL) disqualification under S.D. Codified Laws 32-12A-36(4) applies when a vehicle is used as a means to possess a felony quantity of marijuana.The Department disqualified Appellee's commercial driving privileges for one year pursuant to 32-12A-36(4) because he had been convicted of a felony committed in a vehicle by a CDL holder. The circuit court reversed Appellee's CDL disqualification, holding that the statute requires that a vehicle was an "instrumentality" of the felony. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the Department's decision, holding (1) possession of a felony quantity of marijuana in a vehicle is "using a...vehicle in the commission of any felony" under section 13-21A-36(4); (2) the circuit court erred by holding that section 13-21A-36(4) was unconstitutionally vague; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the Department's disqualification of Appellee's CDL privileges. View "Ibrahim v. Department Of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Department of Labor and Regulation denying Steven Billman's application for permanent total disability benefits, holding that the Department's determination that Billman was not obviously unemployable was clearly erroneous.During his employment, Billman suffered a work-related injury that required the amputation of his left leg just below the knee. The Department denied Billman's application for benefits, finding that Billman was not obviously unemployable and that he failed to conduct a reasonable job search. The circuit court affirmed the Department's findings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Billman established that he was obviously unemployable, and therefore, he was entitled to odd-lot disability benefits. View "Billman v. Clarke Machine, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Insureds' motion for attorney fees after they prevailed in their claims against Insurer, holding that the circuit court properly declined to award Insureds' requested attorney fees.A jury returned a verdict in favor of Insureds on their claims of breach of contract and tortious breach of good faith and fair dealing arising out of Insurer's failure to pay for property damage sustained after a hail and wind storm. Insureds filed a motion for attorney fees, arguing that Insurer's disallowance of their claim was vexatious and unreasonable and in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act. The trial court denied Insureds' request, concluding that the circuit court could not award attorney fees without a jury determination that Insurer had engaged in an unfair trade practice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in declining to award attorney fees. View "Sentell v. Farm Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court applying the doctrine of equitable tolling, thus allowing Noreen French to bring an action against the Estate of Norman D. French to enforce a contract for deed relating to the sale of two quarter sections of farmland, holding that the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable tolling.Norman French, who farmed two quarters of land in Beadle County, entered into a contract for deed with Alan and Noreen French, his son and daughter-in-law, to sell them the land for $10,000. Noreen continued to farm the two quarters after both Norman and Alan passed away. When Noreen learned that Norman had never conveyed the two quarters, the Estate commenced an action to discharge the contract for deed. The circuit court denied the Estate's petition. Noreen then filed this action alleging that she satisfied her obligations under the contract for deed and requesting that the court order the Estate to deliver a deed conveying legal title to the two quarters of farmland. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court's decision to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling was not sustainable. View "In re Estate of French" on Justia Law