Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Defendant in this breach of contract case, holding that the evidence was sufficient to refute Defendant's argument that the alleged agreement was unenforceable.In granting summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that the alleged agreement relating to the transfer of real property was unenforceable because it was for an unlawful purpose, violated the statute of frauds, and lacked consideration. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the parties' writings sufficiently set forth the substance of the parties' agreement to satisfy the statute of frauds; (2) the circuit court erred when it summarily concluded that the only reason Plaintiff transferred the property was to defraud the IRS; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to refute Defendant's argument that the alleged agreement failed as a matter of law for lack of consideration. View "Hanna v. Landsman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Hospital on Nurse's claims for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and defamation, holding that summary judgment was proper.Hospital terminated Nurse after it discovered errors in Nurse's documentation of controlled substances and Nurse's inability to account for controlled substances revamped from the dispensing system. Nurse brought suit against Hospital alleging several claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Hospital on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Hospital. View "Henning v. Avera McKennan Hospital" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's the order of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of Defendant's arrest, holding that the circuit court erred when it refused to consider the application of the attenuation doctrine and suppressed the evidence.Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine and false impersonation. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of her interaction with police officers on the grounds that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain her. The circuit court granted the motion to suppress. Despite the State's argument that the attenuation doctrine applied, the circuit court did not analyze the applicability of the attenuation doctrine. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the connection between Defendant's detention and the subsequent search was interrupted by the discovery of the existence of a valid, preexisting and unrelated warrant, the attenuation factors weighed in favor of the State. View "State v. Mousseaux" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Plaintiff's request for attorney fees under S.D. Codified Laws 60-11-24 after Plaintiff prevailed in an action seeking unpaid wages, holding that because this case was removed for a bench trial section 60-11-24 did not apply and Plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney fees.After Defendant fired Plaintiff, Plaintiff brought an action in small claims court for unpaid wages. Defendant removed the action to circuit court, which ruled in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff requested attorney fees under section 60-11-24. The circuit court denied the request because the removal statute referenced in section 60-11-24 had been repealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in concluding that it could not award reasonable attorney fees under section 60-11-24 because of the repeal of S.D. Codified Laws 15-39-59; and (2) while attorney fees remain recoverable under section 60-11-24 for small claims cases removed to circuit court for a jury trial, this case was removed for a bench trial. View "Goin v. Houdashelt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment declining to declare that the City of Rapid City unlawfully bargained away its police power when it entered into a settlement agreement with Epic Outdoor Advertising under which the City agreed to amend certain sign ordinances and grant Epic two sign permits, holding that the circuit court did not err.Lamar Advertising brought this appeal. By notice of review, Epic asserted that the circuit court erred in denying its request that the court declare invalid a similar settlement agreement executed between Lamar and the City. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects, holding (1) because the City did not contract away its police powers by agreeing to amend the sign code, and because Lamar did not establish that the City acted unreasonably or arbitrarily when it amended the sign code, the circuit court did not err in denying Lamar's motion for summary judgment requesting a declaration that the settlement agreement and the ordinance agreements were invalid; (2) challenges to the granting of permits, such as those brought by Lamar, must be pursued through the administrative process; and (3) the circuit court did not err in failing to find the settlement agreement previously entered into between Lamar and the City invalid. View "Lamar Advertising Of South Dakota, LLC v. City of Rapid City" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment summarily dismissing Petitioners' request that the court declare an original trust and its first amendment valid, holding that the circuit court erred.After the settlor of the trust died, Petitioners filed a petition requesting judicial supervision of the trust under S.D. Codified Laws 21-22-9. Petitioners further requested a declaration of the validity of the original trust and its first amendment, arguing that subsequent amendments were invalid. The circuit court granted a successor trustee's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a challenge to the validity of a trust cannot be asserted in a petition for judicial supervision but could only be commenced via service of summons within one year after the settlor's death. The circuit court granted the successor trustee's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a circuit court may consider the validity of a trust in a petition for judicial supervision, and therefore, Petitioners' petition, which included a request that the circuit court determine the validity of the trust amendments, property commenced a judicial proceeding; and (2) the trust challenge was timely because Petitioners filed their petition within the one-year timeframe after the settlor's death. View "In re Carver Revocable Trust" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance, holding that the circuit court judge did not err when he continued to preside over Defendant's case after Defendant filed an affidavit for change of judge.Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court, the Honorable Tony Portra presiding, received Defendant's guilty plea. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, instead of consulting his appointed counsel, Defendant filed an affidavit for change of judge. Judge Portra denied Defendant's request for change of judge. Thereafter, Defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance. Defendant later filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted the writ and ordered that Defendant be resentenced. The court imposed the same sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Judge Portra violated S.D. Codified Laws 15-12-22 by presiding over the hearing on Defendant's affidavit for a change of judge and determining that Defendant's affidavit was not properly filed; but (2) because Defendant was not entitled to file the affidavit, Judge Portra's non-compliance with section 15-12-22 did not deprive the court of authority to accept Defendant's guilty plea and impose a sentence. View "State v. Hirning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of eighty years imprisonment with forty years suspended for first-degree manslaughter, holding that the sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense and did not violate the Eighth Amendment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense of first-degree manslaughter under the Eighth Amendment; (2) at sentencing, the circuit court properly examined the events surrounding the offense, Defendant's character and history, and Defendant's rehabilitation prospects; and (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in crafting the sentence. View "State v. Holler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court determining that a limited private easement granted Thomas Estes the right of access across Lot 2R within the Estes Subdivision solely to repair or install water lines and that a prescriptive easement did not exist in favor of Estes for the use of a road (Easement Road) that crossed Lot 2R, holding that the circuit court did not err.Estes owned Lots 3 and 4R2 in the subdivision, and Kathrine owned Lot 2R. After hostiles developed concerning Estes' use of the Easement Road, the parties filed multiple claims against one another. After several of the claims were settled or resolved on summary judgment the circuit court resolved the remaining claims during a bench trial. Estes appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it limited the private easement granting a right of access across Lot 2R solely for the repair or installation of water lines; and (2) the circuit court did not err in determining that the evidence did not satisfy the elements for a prescriptive easement. View "Helleberg v. Estes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court affirming the assessed value of Appellants' agricultural land by the Meade County Commission sitting as a board of equalization (the Board), holding that the circuit court did not err.Before the Board, Appellants argued that the director of equalization incorrectly applied statutory provisions to determine their land's production value. The Board further adjusted the assessment from an average of $519 per acre down to an average of $512 per acre. Appellants appealed the Board's decision to circuit court. After a trial de novo, the circuit court affirmed the Board's tax assessment of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err when it determined that (1) the Board complied with the statutory provisions for evaluating agricultural land in their assessment of Appellants' property; and (2) the Board's tax assessment of the property did not violate provisions of the South Dakota Constitution that require uniform taxation at no more than its actual value. View "Trask v. Meade County Commission" on Justia Law