Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Garretts owned 5,200 acres of farmland in Sully County and faced financial difficulties, leading them to sell the property to the Stocks. The Stocks agreed to lease the land back to the Garretts for five years, with an option for the Garretts to repurchase it. The Garretts failed to make timely lease payments, prompting the Stocks to initiate an eviction action. The Stocks alleged that the Garretts had not only failed to pay rent but also committed waste on the property.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Sully County held a two-day trial, where the jury found in favor of the Stocks, granting them immediate possession of the farmland. The Garretts appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying their motion to dismiss, their motion for judgment as a matter of law, and their motion for a new trial. They also contended that the court erred in denying their proposed jury instructions.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decisions. The court held that the Stocks had complied with the three-day notice to quit requirement and that the mandatory mediation provisions did not apply as the relationship was that of lessor and lessee, not creditor and borrower. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Garretts' proposed jury instructions, as the instructions given adequately covered the applicable law. Finally, the court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, and the circuit court did not err in denying the Garretts' motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The Supreme Court also awarded the Stocks $5,000 in appellate attorney fees. View "Stock v. Garrett" on Justia Law

VOR, Inc. and the Grand Valley Hutterite Brethren (Colony) initiated an eviction action against Paul O’Farrell and Skyline Cattle Co. (Skyline) under South Dakota’s forcible entry and detainer (FED) statutes. Paul moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the eviction should have been a compulsory counterclaim in his pending undue influence suit against his brother Kelly, the Colony, and the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust. The circuit court denied Paul’s motion to dismiss, and after a court trial, granted the eviction, ordering Paul to vacate the property within ten days and allowing the Colony to keep any of Paul’s personal property abandoned after the ten days expired. Paul appealed.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit denied Paul’s motion to dismiss, his request for a jury trial, and his request for a continuance. The court proceeded with a court trial and granted the eviction in favor of the Landlords. The court also ordered that any personal property left by Paul after ten days would be considered abandoned and could be kept by the Colony. Additionally, the court awarded attorney’s fees to the Landlords.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The court held that the FED statutes did not allow for pre-answer motions to extend the time for filing an answer and that the eviction action was not a compulsory counterclaim in Paul’s undue influence lawsuit. The court also held that Paul’s demand for a jury trial was untimely and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a continuance or in excluding evidence of undue influence. However, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court erred in ordering the forfeiture of Paul’s personal property and remanded the case to revise the judgment accordingly. The court awarded VOR and the Colony combined appellate attorney fees of $9,000. View "Vor, Inc. v. Estate of O'Farrell" on Justia Law

Lonnie Two Eagle, Sr. was injured when Chad Sully, who was driving and suffered a seizure, collided with him while he was operating a lawn mower. Two Eagle sued Dr. Matthew Smith and the entities Avel eCare, LLC and Moonlighting Solutions, LLC, which contracted with Dr. Smith to provide medical services to Rosebud Indian Health Services Hospital. Two Eagle alleged medical malpractice and ordinary negligence, claiming Dr. Smith was negligent in treating Sully and authorizing him to drive despite his seizure history.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Todd County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Dr. Smith owed no duty of care to Two Eagle. The court found that there was no relationship between Dr. Smith and Two Eagle that would give rise to a duty, and that imposing such a duty would contravene public policy.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Dr. Smith did not owe a duty to Two Eagle under either a medical malpractice or ordinary negligence theory. The court reasoned that there was no special relationship between Dr. Smith and Sully that would create a duty to Two Eagle, and that the risk of harm to Two Eagle was not foreseeable. Additionally, the court emphasized public policy considerations, noting that imposing a duty on physicians to protect third parties could negatively impact the physician-patient relationship and lead to overly restrictive recommendations by physicians. View "Two Eagle V. Avel Ecare" on Justia Law

Duane and Melody Remington purchased a campground and later discovered various defects on the property. They sued the seller, Keith Grimm, and the real estate agent, Bryan Iverson, alleging multiple claims including failure to disclose defects, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Remingtons claimed that Iverson and Grimm did not provide a required property disclosure statement and misrepresented the financial condition of the campground.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Iverson, determining that a property disclosure statement was not required because the sale was a commercial transaction. The court did not specifically address the common law claims of nondisclosure against Iverson. The Remingtons appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that a property disclosure statement was required for the living quarters of the campground, which constituted residential real property. The court affirmed the lower court's decision that a disclosure statement was not required for the non-residential aspects of the campground. The case was remanded to determine whether Iverson breached his fiduciary duty by failing to inform the Remingtons that Grimm was required to provide a property disclosure statement for the living quarters.The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of Iverson’s direct liability, concluding that the Remingtons failed to establish that Iverson had actual knowledge of the alleged defects. The court dismissed Iverson’s notice of review regarding attorney fees and costs due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Remington v. Iverson" on Justia Law

In 2017, Samantha Braun was rear-ended by Radena Wollman in a car accident. Wollman admitted fault, and the case proceeded to a jury trial to determine damages. Braun claimed various injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, and sought significant damages. During the trial, the circuit court admitted several of Braun's medical records over her objections, citing the business records hearsay exception. The jury awarded Braun $125,000, which was significantly less than she requested. Braun appealed, arguing that the admission of her medical records was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced her right to a fair trial.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit admitted the medical records, finding sufficient foundation and applying the business records hearsay exception. Braun objected, arguing lack of foundation and hearsay. The court overruled most of her objections and admitted the records. The jury awarded Braun $125,000 in damages, which she appealed, claiming the court's admission of the records was erroneous and prejudicial.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and found that the circuit court erred in admitting the medical records under the business records exception without proper foundation. However, the court determined that Braun's statements in the records were admissible as non-hearsay, and some statements were admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception. Despite the errors, the court concluded that Braun did not demonstrate substantial prejudice affecting the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the $125,000 damages award. View "Braun v. Wollman" on Justia Law

Krista Dittus sued her former employer, Black Hills Care and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, and the company that took over its operations, RC North SD Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Avantara denied the allegations, asserting it had no employment relationship with Dittus at the time of her termination. Black Hills Care did not respond or appear in the case.The Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota, granted summary judgment in favor of Avantara after striking Dittus's untimely response to the motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and ruled that Avantara was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Written orders were entered, and Avantara's counsel served notice of entry of the orders on Dittus's counsel via the court's electronic filing system on September 15, 2023. Dittus's counsel filed a notice of appeal and a civil case docketing statement through the same system on October 13, 2023, but only the docketing statement was served on Avantara's counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and determined that it lacked appellate jurisdiction due to Dittus's failure to serve the notice of appeal on Avantara's counsel as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. The court emphasized that both timely filing and service of the notice of appeal are mandatory jurisdictional requirements. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "Dittus v. Black Hills Care & Rehab and Avantara" on Justia Law

Paul O’Farrell, individually and on behalf of the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, the Estate of Victoria O’Farrell, Skyline Cattle Co., and VOR, Inc., filed a lawsuit against Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren, Inc., the Raymond and Victoria O’Farrell Living Trust, and Kelly O’Farrell. Paul alleged that Kelly manipulated their father, Raymond, to orchestrate improper transactions, including a $3.2 million land sale and the non-renewal of Skyline’s lease, causing financial harm to the family entities and himself.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Grant County, South Dakota, presided by Judge Robert L. Spears, dismissed Paul’s claims and awarded attorney fees to the defendants. Paul had requested a change of judge, which was denied by Presiding Judge Stoltenburg, who cited judicial economy and previous submissions by Paul in related cases as reasons for the denial.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that Paul and Skyline followed the proper procedure for seeking a change of judge and that neither had waived their right to do so in this specific action. The court found that Judge Spears was disqualified from further proceedings upon the filing of the affidavit for change of judge. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated all orders entered by Judge Spears in the case and remanded for the appointment of a replacement judge. View "Estate Of O’Farrell v. Grand Valley Hutterian Brethren" on Justia Law

Scott Rudloff was convicted of three counts of first-degree rape of a minor under 13 years old. The case began when Rudloff's stepdaughter, L.H., disclosed to her brother, Luke Volk, that Rudloff had been sexually abusing her and her sister, L.R. Law enforcement was called, and forensic interviews and medical examinations were conducted. L.H. and L.R. provided detailed accounts of the abuse, and L.R.'s examination revealed an injury consistent with sexual abuse.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in Lawrence County, South Dakota, denied Rudloff's motion to suppress his post-arrest custodial interview, finding that he had been advised of his Miranda rights and had not unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. The court also allowed testimony from various witnesses, including the victims, their mother Hillary, and Detective Anderson, who conducted the investigation.Rudloff appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, raising several issues, including the denial of his motion to suppress, the admission of certain testimonies, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rudloff had impliedly waived his Miranda rights and did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimonies and determined that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were within the bounds of fair argument.The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the conviction, concluding that the circuit court did not err in its rulings and that Rudloff received a fair trial. View "State v. Rudloff" on Justia Law

Donald Blazer was involved in a vehicle accident and voluntarily submitted to a preliminary breath test (PBT), which showed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. However, he refused to submit to a blood draw. The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (Department) notified Blazer of its intent to disqualify his commercial driver’s license (CDL) for life, citing this refusal as a second violation of SDCL 32-12A-36, with the first being a 2014 DUI conviction. Blazer requested an administrative hearing, and the Department affirmed the disqualification of his CDL for life.Blazer appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department’s decision. The circuit court concluded that Blazer’s voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis, meaning his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL. The Department then appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The Court held that under SDCL 32-23-1.2, a preliminary breath test (PBT) is permitted and may be required in addition to a chemical test. The Court determined that Blazer’s refusal to submit to the blood draw constituted a refusal to submit to a chemical analysis as required by SDCL 32-12A-46. This refusal was a second violation under SDCL 32-12A-36, justifying the disqualification of Blazer’s CDL for life under SDCL 32-12A-37. The Court emphasized that a PBT is a preliminary test and does not fulfill the requirement for a chemical analysis under the implied consent laws. View "Blazer v. Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

Angel Matta was hired by Dakota Provisions in February 2020 as a production worker. Matta had attendance issues documented by his employer and was injured at work on March 23, 2020, leading to several weeks of missed work. He filed a workers' compensation claim and was terminated by Dakota Provisions one month later. Matta then filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination and violation of public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment, which the circuit court granted. Matta appealed the decision.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Beadle County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dakota Provisions, concluding that Matta was an at-will employee and could be terminated for any lawful reason. The court also found that Matta failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his disability discrimination claim and did not recognize a common law tort for retaliatory discharge based on a disability.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision in part, agreeing that Matta was an at-will employee and that his termination did not violate public policy based on disability discrimination. However, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding Matta's claim of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Matta's termination was pretextual and retaliatory, given the proximity of his termination to his workers' compensation claim and the inconsistent reasons provided by Dakota Provisions for his termination. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Matta v. Dakota Provisions" on Justia Law