Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal concerning the interpretation of a right of first refusal entered into by Dennis Powers and his father, Jerome Powers, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims brought against Dennis and Prevailing Wind Park, LLC, holding that there was no error.After Dennis entered into a wind energy lease and easement agreement with Prevailing Wind, Jerome brought this lawsuit alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief and specific performance. Dennis joined Prevailing Wind's motion for summary judgment asserting that the right of first refusal at issue was not triggered and, alternatively, that it was void as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. The circuit court granted the summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) properly entered summary judgment in favor of Dennis even when he did not join Prevailing Wind's statement of undisputed material facts or file his own; and (2) correctly granted Prevailing Wind's motion for summary judgment on all claims. View "Powers v. Powers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court upholding the decision of the White Township Board of Supervisors denying approval of the drainage project of Steven McLean and Matthew McLean, holding that the circuit court properly granted the Township summary judgment.After the Marshal County Drainage Board granted the McLeans a drainage permit they sought approval from the Township because their project could impact roads or rights-of-way in the Township. The Township denied the McLeans' drainage project. The circuit court upheld the Township's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in determining that the McLaens' appeal was untimely; (2) the circuit court properly determined that the Township can regulate the aspects of the McLaens' project that would impact Township roads and rights-of-way; (3) the McLeans' estoppel claim was without merit; and (4) the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment upholding the Township's decision. View "McLaen v. White Township" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Mother's request for primary physical custody of the parties' daughter, V.F., and denying Father's request fo primary physical custody, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.Under a parenting order entered as part of their Arizona divorce the parties shared physical custody of V.F. Father later moved to South Dakota, registered the Arizona divorce and child custody order, and moved to modify the original shared parenting arrangement. Mother, who lived in California, opposed the motion and sought primary physical custody of V.F. The circuit court granted primary physical custody of the child to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court's decision to grant primary physical custody of V.F. to Mother was not an abuse of discretion. View "Flint v. Flint" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Davison County Drainage Commission approving permits to install drain tile on Appellant's farmland, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Kenneth Hostler's challenge to the commission's permitting decision.Hostler, Appellant's downstream neighbor, appeared on the commission's public hearing on Appellant's applications and objected to the permits. After the commission approved the permits Hostler appealed. The circuit court reversed, ruling that the commission abused its discretion in granting the permits. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order, holding that the circuit court did not have authority under the Declaratory Judgment Act to consider Hostler's complaint challenging the commission's decision to grant Appellant's permitting request. View "Hostler v. Davison County Drainage Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court finding co-defendants Adrianna Reecy and Kevin Dickerson guilty of robbery and burglary and also finding Dickerson guilty of aggravated assault against Julio Rojas, holding that exclusion of certain evidence resulted in violation of both defendants' Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.On appeal, both defendants argued that the circuit court erred in precluding any reference to Rojas's immigration status and in admitting into evidence an exhibit listing transactions from Rojas's debit card. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) the circuit court's exclusion of the immigration evidence was error, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the circuit court erred in admitting the bank records at issue because the State did not lay an adequate foundation for the admission of the documents and the court erroneously determined that Rojas was a qualified witness, as contemplated by the exception to the hearsay rule. View "State v. Dickerson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for seven counts, including aggravated assault by physical menace with a dangerous weapon and grand theft by receiving stolen property, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Defendant's convictions arose from two separate incidents involving an alleged shooting and an ensuing confrontation between Defendant and two other men. On appeal, Defendant challenged the circuit court's denial of his motion for acquittal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. View "State v. Ahmed" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment, nor was it an abuse of the circuit court's sentencing discretion.Defendant and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Defendant agreed to plead guilty to attempted first-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. After a sentencing hearing, the circuit court sentenced Defendant to a total of thirty years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence, and (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that his sentence transgressed the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. View "State v. Deleon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of David Straight on Doug Gantvoort's claims asserting intentional invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting others in the invasion of his privacy, and civil conspiracy, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment as to the aiding and abetting count.Doug sued his former wife, Mary Ranschau, and Strait, her attorney, alleging claims arising from the divorce proceedings between Doug and Mary. During their divorce, Mary placed a hidden recording device in Doug's office, and Strait accepted fifty-one of those records, attempting to introduce two of them into evidence during trial. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Strait on all counts. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in granting Strait summary judgment on Doug's claim for aiding and abetting Mary's invasion of privacy; but (2) correctly granted summary judgment on the remaining counts. View "Gantvoort v. Ranschau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that James Bruggeman was a vulnerable adult and finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Jennifer Ramos neglected and financially exploited Bruggeman while she was a caretaker and was entrusted with his property, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it quashed the subpoena for Bruggeman to testify; (2) did not err in determining that Bruggeman was a vulnerable adult under S.D. Codified Laws 21-65-1(15); (3) did not err when it found that Bruggeman was the victim of financial exploitation; and (4) did not err when it ordered Ramos to pay Black Hills Advocate’s attorney fees. View "Bruggeman v. Ramos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of burglary and two counts of simple assault arising from a home invasion, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary and simple assault. Defendant was tried on a part two habitual offender information alleging two prior felon convictions. The jury found Defendant to be a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the show-up identification; (2) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal in the habitual offender trial. View "State v. Red Cloud" on Justia Law