Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Three individuals (the Conservators) were appointed guardians and conservators of Mary Novotny. The Conservators established the Mary D. Novotny Trust. Catherine Novotny was a beneficiary of the Trust, and the conservators were the trustees. When a dispute over the Trust arose between the trustees and Catherine, the circuit court granted reimbursement of expenses to the trustees. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Conservators and awarded them reimbursement and future expenses. Catherine appealed. The Supreme Court remanded, holding that there was no evidence in the record that supported the basis for reimbursement under S.D. Codified Laws 55-3-13, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Conservators’ motions for expenses. View "In re Guardianship of Novotny" on Justia Law

Tyler Erickson filed a petition for a protection order against Austin Earley, a fellow hunter. The circuit court found in favor of Erickson, determining that Earley’s actions constituted stalking, and granted Erickson a permanent order of protection. Earley appealed, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting the protection order and that the protection order violated his right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Earley’s actions constituted harassment, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by granting the protection order; and (2) the protection order did not violate Earley’s right to free speech because “freedom of expression does not include threatening or harassing conduct.” View "Erickson v. Earley" on Justia Law

In November 2009, Plaintiff underwent a knee-replacement surgery at Sanford USD Medical Center. The day after the surgery, when he was still hospitalized, Plaintiff fell while walking with assistance from a patient-care technician. After being discharged, Plaintiff underwent inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient physical therapy. In September 2012, Plaintiff sought additional physical therapy for the alleged effects of the injury resulting from his fall. When Sanford declined to pay for additional treatment, Plaintiff commenced this action. Sanford moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff’s action was time-barred under S.D. Codified Laws 15-2-14.1 as a medical malpractice claim. The circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that he commenced his action within the three-year statute of limitations applicable to general-negligence actions and that the circuit court erred in determining his action was time barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s action against Sanford was one for error or mistake, and therefore, section 15-2-14.1’s two-year period of repose applies; and (2) principles of estoppel and tolling are inapplicable to a period of repose, and the continuous-treatment rule did not toll section 15-2-14.1’s period of repose under the facts of this case. View "Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree kidnapping and criminal trespass. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to give Defendant’s proposed instructions defining specific intent and voluntary intoxication. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) second-degree kidnapping is a specific intent crime, and the trial court abused its discretion by not so instructing the jury; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s proposed jury instruction related to voluntary intoxication so that the jury could properly consider his defense; and (3) Defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s abuse of discretion. Remanded. View "State v. Liaw" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to forgery. The circuit court accepted the plea after determining that a factual basis existed for the plea. The court sentenced Defendant without objection. Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to obtain a factual basis that the offense occurred in South Dakota and that the adequacy of a factual basis for a plea is a jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an inadequate factual basis does not deprive a circuit court of its subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

In this lengthy estate dispute, Testator’s daughter (Daughter) appealed several rulings of the circuit court, including the circuit court’s denial of her request for relief from an order under S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-60(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Daughter relief under section 15-6-60(b); (2) did not err when it considered extrinsic evidence to interpret Testator’s last will and testament and subsequent codicil; (3) properly approved the personal representative’s proposed distribution of Testator’s assets; (4) did not err in reforming the will and codicil; and (5) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Testator’s grandson. View "In re Estate of Bickel" on Justia Law

Then-State Representative Steve Hickey sponsored an initiated measure to be certified for the November 2016 general election that would, if adopted, impose a maximum finance charge against certain lenders for certain types of loans. On April 1, 2015, Hickey submitted a copy of the final version to Attorney General Marty Jackley. On May 27, 2015, Jackley filed the title and explanation that he drafted in regard to this measure with the Secretary of State. On June 5, 2015, Erin Ageton, an opponent of the measure, filed an application for a writ of certiorari, asserting that Jackley did not comply with his legal duties under S.D. Codified Laws 12-13-25.1 because his explanation failed to education the voters that the purpose and effect of the measure was to ban short-term lending in South Dakota. The circuit court denied the application for a writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the explanation was adequate under section 12-13-25.1. View "Ageton v. Jackley" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2014 pursuant to a divorce decree awarding joint legal custody of the parties’ children with primary physical custody to Mother. The court allowed Mother to continue to reside in Sioux Falls, where she moved during the trial, awarded Mother certain property and a cash equalization payment, and ordered Father to pay monthly alimony and $70,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s award of joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Mother; (2) reversed the circuit court’s division of the parties’ property, holding that the court erred in its recapture and division of certain gifts Father made years before the divorce trial; (3) reversed the award of alimony, holding that Mother failed to carry her burden of introducing evidence of her need for support; and (4) affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs. View "Kolbach v. Kolbach" on Justia Law

Delores Gibson and her two sons, Michael and Greg Gibson, created the Gibson Family Limited Partnership (GFLP). Delores served as the general partner, and Michael and Greg were limited partners. Michael filed suit against GFLP, Delores, and Greg, asserting, among other claims, that Delores breached her fiduciary duty by leasing the property to Greg. The jury rejected Michael’s claims. Michael later commenced this action asserting that Delores breached her fiduciary duty to GFLP based on the partnership’s land transactions with Greg. Michael subsequently amended his complaint to also seek equitable relief in the form of dissociation from GFLP for value. The jury returned a verdict against Michael on the fiduciary claim, the only claim relevant to this appeal. The court then denied Michael’s dissociation claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) declining to order dissociation for value; and (2) making certain evidentiary rulings in the jury trial and by refusing to reconsider dissociation based on newly discovered evidence. View "Gibson v. Gibson Family Ltd. P’ship" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in a South Dakota circuit court to driving under the influence and admitted to being a habitual offender. The magistrate court did not specifically inform Defendant that a guilty plea would impact his Nebraska commercial driver’s license (CDL). A year after the judgment of conviction was entered Defendant filed a motion to reopen his case and allow him to withdraw his guilty plea under S.D. Codified Laws 23A-27-11, claiming that the loss of his CDL constituted a manifest injustice. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because Defendant’s motion under section 23A-27-11 was not filed more than thirty days after entry of the judgment of conviction. View "State v. Kaufman" on Justia Law