Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thomas and Elizabeth Edgar entered into a lease agreement with Boyd and Merlyn Mills concerning land in Faulk County. Under the belief that he had an option to purchase the real estate at the conclusion of the lease term, Thomas Edgar later contacted an attorney to prepare a warranty deed so that the Millses could convey the real estate to the Edgars. After the Edgars’ attempts to execute the deed with the Millses failed, the Edgars sued the Millses for specific performance. The Millses counterclaimed, alleging that the Edgars breached the lease agreement. The trial court found the lease agreement ambiguous and considered parol evidence. The court ultimately concluded that the parties intended the lease agreement to be a lease with an option to purchase and ordered specific performance compelling the Millses to execute a warranty deed in favor of the Edgars. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding (1) the trial court erred when it interpreted the parties’ agreement to be ambiguous and when it directed the Millses to execute a warranty deed in favor of the Edgars; and (2) under the lease, the Millses were entitled to reimbursement of their reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by reason of the Edgars’ breach of the lease agreement. View "Edgar v. Mills" on Justia Law

Landowners in Day County filed a lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GF&P), Secretary Jeffrey Vonk, the State, and certain unnamed defendants who have used or intend to use the waters and ice overlying Landowners’ private property for recreational purposes. Landowners sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the public’s right to use the floodwaters on their property. Landowners asked the circuit court to certify the defendant class to include all people who have used or intend to use the bodies of water overlying Landowners’ private property. The court circuit certified the defendant class and appointed the Secretary of GF&P as the class representative. After a hearing, the circuit court entered declaratory and injunctive relief against the named and class defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err when it certified the defendant class in this case; (2) did not err in granting declaratory relief, but, on remand, the circuit court must modify the language of relief provided in this opinion; and (3) did not err in issuing an injunction, but, on remand, the circuit court must modify the language of the injunction as provided in this opinion. View "Duerre v. Hepler" on Justia Law

Sueellan Kline and her boyfriend, Douglas Strong, a parolee, lived together in a motel room. Parole agent Connie Johnson went to the motel room to obtain a urine sample from Strong. When Strong’s urine field-tested positive to methamphetamine Johnson removed Strong from the room and detained him in the hallway. Johnson then reentered the room and asked Kline if there were drugs or drug paraphernalia in the room. In response, Kline removed a methamphetamine pipe from her purse and handed it to Johnson. The pipe was used to obtain a search warrant for Kline’s urine, which tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Kline filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was obtained as the result of an illegal search. The circuit court denied the motion. Kline was subsequently convicted of ingestion of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Johnson lawfully reentered the residence and that Kline voluntarily consented to production of the methamphetamine pipe, and therefore, the evidence was not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. View "State v. Kline" on Justia Law

Dustin Nelson filed an application for a conditional-use permit to construct and operate a concentrated animal-feeding operation in Grant County. The Grant County Board of Adjustment voted to approve the application. Geraldine and Barth Adolph petitioned the circuit court for a writ of certiorari to review the legality of the Board’s decision. The circuit court affirmed. The Adolphs appealed, arguing (1) the Board’s decision was illegal because Nelson’s proposed project violates the Zoning Ordinance for Grant County; and (2) Nelson presented a new waste-disposal plan at the public hearing, denying them an opportunity for meaningful participation. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) although the Board regularly pursued its authority in most respects, it erroneously believed that past environmental violations of a prospective applicant are never relevant in considering whether to approve an application; (2) the Adolphs were not denied due process during the public hearing; and (3) the Board did not exhibit bias requiring a new hearing. View "Adolph v. Grant County Board of Adjustment" on Justia Law

David Knigge entered into an oral employment contract with Robert Knigge, who had cancer and a limited time to live, to manage a grocery store that was owned by Robert and his wife, Lynette. David alleged that the contract included a severance payment if Lynette ended David’s employment after Robert’s death. Robert died five months after entering into the contract. Lynette terminated David’s employment two months after Robert died and refused to pay the severance. David filed suit to enforce the agreement. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Lynnette, ruling that the oral contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because it could not be performed within one year. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that there were disputes of material fact regarding the existence of the severance term. View "Knigge v. B & L Food Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance. The circuit court departed from a presumptive sentence of probation and sentenced Defendant to four years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circumstances enumerated by the circuit court did not justify a departure from the presumptive sentence of probation, as the court failed to identify aggravating factors sufficient to deviate from a presumptive sentence of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s criminal history and complete disregard for supervised release indicated that the circuit court’s departure from the presumptive sentence of probation was warranted. View "State v. Underwood" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of rape in the first degree and two counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen years of age. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination to exclude statements regarding self-harm; (2) the circuit court erred in denying a judgment of acquittal on the two sexual contact counts; (3) the State offered sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (4) the circuit court did not impose a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant. Remanded. View "State v. Bausch" on Justia Law

After Keith Mendenhall and Lisa Swanson divorced, Keith brought a claim for slander against Lisa. Lisa counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander, and alienation of her daughter’s affection. Before trial, the trial court granted Lisa’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Keith’s slander claim. The jury subsequently found in favor of Lisa on each of her counterclaims except slander and awarded her $211,710. Keith appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by admitting fourteen exhibits consisting of court documents from prior proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding that the court’s failure to analyze the facts contained in the fourteen exhibits under principles of judicial notice or issue preclusion was error, and the error likely had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict. View "Mendenhall v. Swanson" on Justia Law

After Wife sought a divorce from Husband, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement to divide their property and debt. The agreement awarded the martial home to Husband, divided responsibility for the two mortgages on the home, and declared that the home be sold, with the proceeds from the sale to pay off any sum remaining on the mortgages. Husband later sold the home and used the sale proceeds to pay off both mortgages. Husband requested reimbursement from Wife for the mortgage debt assigned to her, but Wife refused to reimburse him. Husband filed a motion for order to show cause asking the circuit court to hold Wife in contempt and enter a judgment against her for the amount he paid on her mortgage. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by finding that the agreement was unambiguous and did not err in its interpretation of the agreement; (2) the plain language of the agreement did not require Wife to reimburse Husband; and (3) the circuit court did not err in determining that Husband’s request for an order requiring repaying from Wife would result in an impermissible modification of a final property settlement. View "Coffey v. Coffey" on Justia Law

Steven Wipf (Plaintiff) sued Dr. Terry Alstiel and Regional Health Physicians Inc. (Defendants) for medical malpractice, alleging that Dr. Altstiel accidentally perforated Wipf’s small bowel during a laparoscopic hernia repair and that Dr. Altstiel failed to inspect and find the perforations before completing the surgery. During discovery, Wipf sought access to operative and postoperative notices relating to follow-up care of some of Dr. Altstiel’s patients who had received laparoscopic hernia repairs. The circuit court found those records relevant and ordered Defendants to partially redact and produce the redacted records. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not adequately ensure that privileged information was not disclosed. Remanded for the circuit court to consider whether additional safeguards will ensure patient anonymity and, if so, the court must enter a protective order before disclosure. View "Wipf v. Altstiel" on Justia Law