Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff suffered an injury from a fall while at Black Hills Dialysis LLC’s (BHD) facility in Shannon County. Plaintiff sued BHD for her injuries. A dispute subsequently arose about whether the circuit court should summon jurors from Shannon County or neighboring Fall River County where Shannon County has no physical state court facilities and all Shannon County legal proceedings are held at the Fall River County Courthouse. The circuit court ruled that it would summon Fall River County jurors, holding that a 2009 standing order issued by the presiding judge of the Seventh Circuit stating that all Shannon County matters would be tried in Fall River County supported its resolution of the issue. The Supreme Court vacated the presiding judge’s standing order and reversed the order of the circuit court, holding (1) the presiding judge exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority in issuing the standing order, which effectively changed venue in all Shannon County cases; (2) the circuit court’s ruling on venue in this case was improper and without legal basis; and (3) under the circumstances of this case, venue was proper in Shannon County, and Shannon County jurors should be summoned and empaneled. View "Good Lance v. Black Hills Dialysis, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2014, Mother and Father agreed to divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. After a two-day trial, the circuit court granted Mother primary physical custody of the parties’ two children. Father appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by basing its decision on findings that were unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that awarding primary physical custody of the children to Mother was in their best interests. Rather, the court carefully considered the factors relevant to the best interests of the children analysis and appropriately awarded primary physical custody. View "Van Duysen v. Van Duysen" on Justia Law

Duane Pankratz filed a complaint against Robert Cullum’s estate for breach of an oral promise to transfer corporate stock and for the recovery of corporate debt Robert Cullum allegedly personally guaranteed to pay. The Estate moved for summary judgment, asserting that there was no binding personal guaranty between Pankratz and Cullum and that the statute of limitations barred Pankratz’s claim for shares in Cullum’s corporation. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err when it ruled that Cullum’s personal guaranty must be in writing to be enforceable; and (2) the circuit court did not err when it granted summary judgment on Pankratz’s claim that Cullum breached the parties’ oral agreement to transfer corporate stock because Pankratz did not bring his claim within the relevant statute of limitations period. View "In re Estate of Cullum" on Justia Law

The circuit court granted a divorce to Husband and Wife on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Husband appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the interest and penalties on the parties’ IRS tax liability was Husband’s nonmarital debt; (2) awarding spousal support of $1,000 per month to Wife for a period of ten years to follow the sale of the marital home; and (3) ordering Husband to pay all mortgage, insurance, and property-tax payments on the marital home until its sale. Further, the Court held that Husband must pay Wife’s appellate attorney fees. View "MacKaben v. MacKaben" on Justia Law

Defendant was searched pursuant to a search warrant with an “all persons” provision. Defendant was found in possession of marijuana and methamphetamine. Defendant was subsequently convicted of possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained a result of the search, arguing that the affidavit in support of the search warrant lacked probable cause for the “all persons” provision. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the affidavit adequately established probable cause for issuance of a warrant with the “all persons” provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers’ good-faith reliance on the warrant, specifically its “all persons” provision, was objectively reasonable, thereby making suppression an inappropriate remedy. View "State v. Running Shield" on Justia Law

Aggregate Construction, Inc. (Aggregate) hired Aaron Swan & Associates, Inc. (Swan) to conduct sodium-sulfate soundness testing of material to be used in a construction project for the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) for sodium-sulfate soundness testing. Aggregate later filed this action against Swan, alleging breach of contract and negligence for Swan’s alleged failure to test adequately the material. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Swan, concluding that a release executed between Aggregate and SDDOT barred the claims against Swan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Aggregate and SDDOT executed a release that applied to the causes of action brought by Aggregate against Swan, the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment to Swan. View "Aggregate Constr., Inc. v. Aaron Swan & Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Casper Lodging, LLC filed this breach of contract case against Robert Akers, alleging that Akers failed to deliver to James Koehler a hotel in compliance with the parties’ agreements. A jury found in favor of Casper Lodging and awarded $1,019,468 in damages, the full amount requested. During the settling of the jury instructions, the parties agreed to allow the circuit court to determine the appropriate date to calculate prejudgment interest in the event the jury found in favor of Casper Lodging. Upon receipt of the verdict, the circuit court declared that prejudgment interest accrued from the date of the delivery of the completed hotel and awarded Plaintiff $997,682 in prejudgment interest. Additionally, the court awarded Plaintiff post-judgment interest on the combined sum of the jury verdict and the prejudgment interest calculation. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court’s calculation of prejudgment interest and remanded for the court to compute prejudgment interest based on the cost of repairs incurred by Casper Lodging from the date the expenses were incurred; and (2) affirmed on all remaining issues. View "Casper Lodging, LLC v. Akers" on Justia Law

Defendant was attacked during a drug transaction. Defendant used lethal force against one of the perpetrators with an illegal shotgun. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree manslaughter, possession of a controlled weapon, and distribution of a controlled substance to a minor. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on a reduced mens rea of recklessness of the charge of first-degree manslaughter or in permitting jury instructions that emphasized the illegality of the firearm; (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s proposed jury instructions; (3) did not fail to properly instruct the jury as to the alleged felonies being committed upon Defendant; and (4) did not abuse its discretion by admitting other-act evidence. However, because there was no way to determine if a Brady violation occurred with regard to certain evidence that was not within the record, the case was remanded for the circuit court to include the evidence within the record and to reconsider the Brady issue as to that evidence. View "State v. Birdshead" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Defendant was entitled to presumptive probation unless the court found aggravating circumstances “that pose a significant risk to the public.” In imposing sentence, the court concluded that three aggravated circumstances overcame presumptive probation and sentenced Defendant to thirty-six months in prison with eighteen months suspended. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the aggravating circumstances demonstrated that placing Defendant on probation would have posed a significant risk to the public, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in departing from presumptive probation; and (2) the trial court erred in not restating the aggravating circumstance in the judgment, but this clerical failure may be corrected on remand to include the omitted material in the judgment. View "State v. Beckwith" on Justia Law

Appellant injured his right shoulder while working for Employer. Due to his injuries and Employer’s lack of workers’ compensation coverage, Appellant sued to recover for his disability, arguing that Employer was in violation of South Dakota’s workers’ compensation law by failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Redstone, concluding that Redstone was exempt from the requirement to purchase workers’ compensation insurance under S.D. Codified Laws 62-3-15, which exempts “farm or agricultural laborers” from coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable test for determining an employee’s status as an agricultural laborer under section 62-3-15 is examining the entire nature of the employee’s work, which involves looking at the nature of the employer’s business; and (2) in this case, Appellant’s employment was agricultural in nature and performed for an exclusively agricultural employer, and therefore, Appellant was an agricultural laborer under the code and thus exempt from workers’ compensation coverage. View "Hofer v. Redstone Feeders, LLC" on Justia Law