Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Sioux Falls and denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint alleging negligence against the City, holding that the court did not err by granting the City's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.Plaintiff was injured when her apartment collapsed after a contractor demolished certain portions of a load-bearing wall. Plaintiff and her parents sued the City, alleging negligence for issuing a building permit for the project. The City filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the public duty rule barred the suit and that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish that the City owed them a special duty to bring them within the exception to the public duty rule. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the City owed Plaintiffs a special duty of care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a special duty was not created by the City's issuance of the permit, and therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. View "Fodness v. City Of Sioux Falls" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his encounter with police, holding that the circuit court properly denied the motion to suppress.Defendant was charged with possession of controlled substances, a loaded firearm while intoxicated, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a stop of his person on the basis that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the search was done in accordance with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and its progeny. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that property owned by Sharon Orr-Hanson and her husband, Bennet Hanson, was owned as tenants in common and ordering partition of the property after Sharon's death, holding that the circuit court properly found that the property was owned as tenants in common.The personal representatives of Sharon's estate brought this action to have the property sold and the proceeds split evenly. The circuit court determined that a corrective deed terminated what was previously a joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common. On appeal, Bennet argued that the property was held as joint tenants and should go to him alone as the surviving joint tenant. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in concluding that the corrective deed severed Bennet's and Sharon's joint tenancy and created a tenancy in common; and (2) Bennet's remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "Moeckly v. Hanson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree murder and sentencing him to ninety years in prison, holding that Defendant's discretionary sentence did not offend the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.Defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder. He was seventeen years old when he committed the crime. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to ninety years in prison, making him eligible for parole at age sixty-two. On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was unconstitutional because it violated categorical Eighth Amendment sentencing restrictions for juveniles and because it was disproportionately harsh. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) because the court did not sentence Defendant to a mandatory life sentence and sufficiently considered his youth when fashioning his sentence, there was no Eighth Amendment violation; and (2) Defendant did not meet the initial requirement to show that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime. View "State v. Quevedo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court holding that David Leedom's obligation to pay Cindy Leedom monthly alimony in the amount of $3,000 was continuing until modified by the court, that David pay Cindy the accrued alimony of $87,000, and that David's ongoing alimony obligation was $1,750 per month, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.In 2004, the divorce court ordered David to pay Cindy $3,000 in monthly alimony. In 2017, after he reached the age of social security eligibility, David stopped paying alimony. Cindy filed a motion to restore alimony, alleging that David was obligated to pay lifetime alimony of $3,000 monthly. The circuit court ordered David to pay the accrued alimony of $87,000 to Cindy and reduced David's ongoing alimony obligation to $1,750 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by determining that the original alimony award did not terminate upon David reaching the age of social security eligibility; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the terms of the alimony obligation. View "Leedom v. Leedom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated assault (domestic), simple assault (domestic), interference with emergency communications, and disorderly conduct but remanded with instructions to issue a new judgment removing the domestic designation from Defendant's assault convictions, holding that the court lacked authority to designate the assault conviction as domestic and order payment of the statutory domestic violence fees.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant did not establish plain error through the admission of certain evidence; (2) Defendant did not demonstrate the existence of plain error regarding the prosecutor's closing argument; (3) the circuit court correctly denied Defendant's judgment for acquittal on the assault charges, but the assault convictions should not have been designated as domestic, and the court should not have imposed two $25 domestic violence fees for Defendant's assault convictions; and (4) Defendant did not demonstrate prejudicial error resulting from his absence at a stipulated post-judgment sentence modification meeting. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this consolidated appeal brought by the State as to each of three jointly indicted defendants from a trial court order dismissing certain counts of the indictment against them, holding that the State has no right of appeal from the dismissal of counts of an indictment or information.Defendants moved to dismiss several counts of the joint indictment on the grounds of multiplicity. The trial court granted the motion as to counts three through sixteen, leaving some counts of the indictment for further proceedings. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that S.D. Codified Laws 23A-32-4 does not authorize an appeal of right from a dismissal of individual counts, and therefore, this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the State's appeals. View "State v. Steffensen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's award of employee benefits to Plaintiff, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to employee benefits under the City of Edgemont's Personnel Manual.Plaintiff sued the City of Edgemont alleging that he was owed employee benefits under the Manual. The circuit court found that Plaintiff was a City employee as of December 3, 2012 but only awarded employee benefits under the Manual after Plaintiff was appointed City Engineer/Code Officer on May 6, 2014. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court correctly denied Plaintiff any additional employee benefits under the Manual from December 3, 2012 to May 6, 2014; (2) the circuit court erred in granting benefits under the Manual from May 6, 2014 through May 5, 2015 because, as a temporary or seasonal employee, Plaintiff did not qualify for the benefits afforded to regular full-time or part-time employees; and (3) Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees because he did not prevail on his wage claim. View "Koopman v. City Of Edgemont" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court granting a motion to dismiss this action brought by a group of investors in the federal EB5 immigrant investment program against various agencies that implemented the program in South Dakota, holding that sovereign immunity barred this action.In this case arising from implementation of the EB5 immigration investment program in South Dakota, a group of investors (Claimants) filed an amended complaint against several agencies that implemented the program, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach and requesting to pierce the corporate veil. The circuit court held that Claimants' suit was barred by sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Claimants failed to show that an express waiver of sovereign immunity applied to the State's activities with the EB5 Program; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly granted the State's motion to dismiss. View "LP6 Claimants, LLC v. S.D. Department of Tourism & State Development" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Appellee in this workers' compensation case, holding that an error led to the exclusion of relevant evidence and incorrect jury instructions that impacted the jury's verdict, which prejudiced Appellants.Fern Johnson sued her former employer and its workers' compensation carrier (collectively, Appellants) alleging bad faith and conversion based on their denial of previously ordered workers' compensation medical benefits. A jury returned a verdict for Johnson. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it concluded that Appellants' legal obligation to pay Johnson's benefits was not fairly debatable; but (2) the circuit court erred when it determined that the lack of a reasonable basis to deny benefits necessarily impacted the jury's consideration of the separate bad faith element concerning Appellants' knowledge. View "Johnson v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law