Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellants’ denial of their request for preliminary injunctive relief against River Bluff Estates, LLC, holding that Appellants did not demonstrate the need for preliminary injunctive relief.Appellants filed a complaint against River Bluff, alleging nuisance (increased drainage due to physical changes to River Bluff’s property) and trespass (rain events causing an encroachment of the slope onto Appellants’ properties). Appellants requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and damages. The circuit court denied preliminary injunctive relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and remanded for further proceedings on Appellants’ legal and equitable claims, holding (1) the circuit court erred in concluding that monetary compensation would afford Appellants adequate relief in this case, but nevertheless, Appellants failed to demonstrate that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm prior to a final disposition of the case on its merits; and (2) the circuit court’s factual findings and legal conclusions were not preclusive as to the merits of Appellants’ request for permanent injunctive relief. View "Hedlund v. River Bluff Estates, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for first-degree rape and sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen and remanded this case for a new trial, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in permitting Defendant’s impeachment with inconsistent statements he made to law enforcement in a prior, unrelated criminal investigation; but (2) the circuit court misapplied S.D. Codified Laws 19-19-702 when it precluded Defendant’s expert witness from testifying about the methods used by the forensic interviewer who interviewed the child, and the exclusion of this evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to entitle Defendant to a new trial. View "State v. Wills" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant engaged in impermissible self-dealing in her capacity as the decedent’s attorney-in-fact by writing checks from an account Defendant owned jointly with the decedent for the benefit of the decedent and her family.Plaintiff in this case was the personal representative of the decedent, her deceased mother, and Defendant was Plaintiff’s sister. Plaintiff sued Defendant on several grounds, including breach of fiduciary duties. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendant on that issue, concluding that the power of attorney authorized self-dealing of the kind alleged here and that creation of the joint account did not involve an exercise of Defendant’s powers as attorney-in-fact. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Defendant engaged in impermissible self-dealing with respect to the money withdrawn from the joint account during the decedent’s lifetime; and (2) with respect to the issue of whether Defendant acted in her fiduciary capacity when she was added to the account, the case is remanded to the circuit court to make further determinations on the issue. View "Wyman v. Bruckner" on Justia Law

Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement may not require an arrestee to urinate into a specimen container as a search incident to a lawful arrest without a valid warrant.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for unauthorized ingestion of a controlled substance. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence produced through chemical analysis of a urine sample that law enforcement obtained without first obtaining Defendant’s consent or a warrant. After considering an arrestee’s legitimate expectation of privacy and the government’s competing interest in preserving evidence, the Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) law enforcement may not, without a warrant, require an arrestee to provide a urine sample as a search incident to arrest; and (2) therefore, the search in this case was unconstitutional, and the circuit court erred by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Lar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a jury award of $260,464 after the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on its breach of contract and fraud claims against Defendant.In Stern Oil I, Defendant appealed a judgment awarding Plaintiff over eight years of lost profits in excess of $900,000. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, ruling that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on its breach of contract claims against Defendant and by denying Defendant’s fraud claims against Plaintiff.On remand, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff on both claims. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred by (1) instructing the jury on consequential damages and the foreseeability of Plaintiff’s lost profits to Defendant at the time of contracting; and (2) excluding Plaintiff’s evidence on four damage scenarios. View "Stern Oil Co. v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court order, entered after a hearing, summoning William Joseph Wilkie to appear and testify in an out-of-state criminal proceeding in Clay County, Minnesota but reversed and remanded the order summoning Wilkie’s granddaughter, M.M.W., to appear and testify in the same criminal proceeding.In this consolidated appeal, Wilkie and M.M.W. argued that their rights as victims in the criminal proceeding were violated because they were not advised of their right to counsel during the circuit court hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part holding (1) because the proceedings in South Dakota did not implicate S.D. Const. art. VI, section 29, the circuit court had no obligation to advise either Wilkie or M.M.W. of any rights under Marsy’s Law; but (2) while the circuit court did not err in finding that Wilkie failed to present any evidence of hardship for himself in ordering Wilkie to appear and testify in Minnesota, the circuit court failed to make adequate findings on M.M.W.’s claim of hardship. View "In re Issuance of a Summons Compelling an Essential Witness to Appear & Testify" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the circuit court declining to instruct the jury on assumption of the risk in this negligence case.Ronald Jensen purchased plywood sheets from a Menard Inc. store. While an employee loaded the sheets onto the back of Ronald’s truck a gust of wind caused the plywood to tip over and fall on Ronald, resulting in severe injuries. Ronald filed a lawsuit against Menards for negligence, and his wife sued for loss of consortium. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Ronald’s wife and estate. Menards appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying Meanrds’ request for an instruction on assumption of the risk. The supreme Court affirmed, holding that an assumption of the risk defense could not be established. View "Jensen v. Menard, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Charlotte A. Wintersteen’s motion to amend her petition for court supervision of a trust to include a claim challenging the validity of the most recent amendment to the trust, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to amend the original petition as futile.Charlotte, the widow of Lee R. Wintersteen, sought court supervision of the Lee R. Wintersteen Revocable Trust Agreement upon learning that she had been removed as a beneficiary in a subsequent amendment to the trust. The circuit court granted the petition and assumed supervision of the trust. When Charlotte sought to amend her petition, however, the circuit court concluded that the amended petition would be futile because it was time-barred under S.D. Codified Laws 55-4-57(a)(1) where more than one year had passed since the date of Lee’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Charlotte’s claim was time-barred; and (2) Charlotte could not take advantage of the relation-back doctrine for her extinguished claim. View "In re Wintersteen Revocable Trust Agreement" on Justia Law

McKie Ford Lincoln, Inc. filed suit against Scott Hanna, its former sales manager, and Gateway Automotive, LLC, the automobile dealership Hanna owned, seeking to enforce a non-competition and disclosure agreement that Hanna signed when he was hired by McKie Ford. Hanna and Gateway filed a counterclaim against McKie Ford alleging a cause of action for barratry. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the summary judgment motion filed by Hanna and Gateway and denied McKie Ford’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of McKie Ford’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Hanna was no longer subject to the non-compete agreement when he commenced ownership and operation of Gateway, and therefore, Hanna was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "McKie Ford Lincoln, Inc. v. Hanna" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree burglary, and second-degree rape, holding that the circuit court did not commit prejudicial error in any of the issues raised by Defendant.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court committed several errors in its evidentiary rulings, erred by denying Defendant’s motions for mistrial, erred in denying Defendant’s proposed jury instructions, and erred by denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant further argued that the accumulation of the errors constituted reversible error. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there was no prejudicial error. View "State v. Kryger" on Justia Law