Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the circuit court entered a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of James and Jennifer Hiller. In distributing the parties’ marital assets, the court ordered that James assume all of the marital debt but $500,000 and ordered him to make best efforts with the bank and cooperate to remove Jennifer “from the liabilities as otherwise provided herein.” When James did not remove Jennifer from the assigned liabilities, the court ordered that it would compel James to sell personal property if he did not remove Jennifer from his assigned liabilities by a certain date. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred when it impermissibly modified the marital property division by forcing James to sell property if he did not restructure or refinance prior to the set deadline; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied James’s S.D. Codified Laws 15-6-60(b) motion to re-open the property division. View "Hiller v. Hiller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree rape and sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress statements that Defendant claimed were given in violation of Miranda, as Defendant was not in custody for the purposes of Miranda at the time he gave the statements; and (2) when it denied Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "State v. Deal" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were two families of shareholders owning stock in Cosmos of the Black Hills, Inc. Plaintiffs, the minority shareholders, brought an action against Defendants, the majority shareholders, alleging breach of fiduciary loyalty, breach of fiduciary care, minority shareholder oppression, and request for accounting. The fiduciary duty claims were tried to the jury, and the oppression and accounting claims were tried to the circuit court. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendants on the fiduciary duty claims, and the circuit court issued a judgment in favor of Defendants on the remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the jury instructions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court incorrectly instructed the jury that “South Dakota law does not allow a shareholder to use the fiduciary duty concept to rewrite an original deal he or she made with the corporation,” but the error did not prejudice Plaintiffs; (2) the jury instructions, when viewed as a whole, adequately instructed the jury of Defendants’ fiduciary duty of care and loyalty; and (3) the circuit court did not err in rejecting certain proposed jury instructions by Plaintiffs where the instructions merely amplified other instructions and no authority was cited in support of the instructions. View "Schultz v. Scandrett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a petition and affidavit for a stalking protection order against Defendant, her former boyfriend. After a hearing, the circuit court entered a written permanent protection order prohibiting Defendant from coming within a distance of 100 yards of Plaintiff for a period of five years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Plaintiff failed to timely submit written findings of fact, the Court was left with the circuit court’s oral findings of fact and conclusions of law from the hearing, and the court’s oral findings of fact were insufficient to permit a meaningful review of the court decision; and (2) the circuit court did not err in excluding certain evidence on the basis that it was not relevant. Remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law. View "Repp v. Van Someren" on Justia Law

Teton LLC filed an application with the Grant County Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit to construct a concentrated animal feeding operation. The Board ultimately approved Teton’s application. The circuit court concluded that the Board had jurisdiction over Teton’s application and pursued its authority in a regular manner. Grant County Concerned Citizens (GCCC) and Timothy Tyler appealed. Specifically, GCCC asserted that Teton’s proposed project violated the Zoning Ordinance for Grant County and, therefore, the Board’s decision was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board regularly pursued its authority in granting Teton’s application for a conditional use permit; and (2) the circuit court did not err in striking Tyler’s affidavit from the record. View "Grant County Concerned Citizens v. Grant County Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and simple assault. Defendant was sentenced to twenty years with ten years suspended for aggravated assault and two years for simple assault, to run concurrently. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the conviction. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, contending that his sentence was ambiguous or internally contradictory. The circuit court denied the motion after noting that the oral sentence controlled over the written judgment, concluding that the oral sentence was neither internally inconsistent nor ambiguous. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the oral pronouncement of Defendant’s sentence was neither ambiguous nor internally contradictory, and therefore, the sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

Delbert Deutsch died in 2012. Deutsch’s widow, Marcelina, and her son found a copy of a 2011 will on top of Delbert’s desk but, after a careful and exhaustive search, could not find an original will. Delbert’s nephews filed a petition for formal probate of the copy of the will and for determination of heirs. After a trial, the circuit court concluded that the lost will was not revoked by Delbert and admitted the copy of the will to probate. Marcelina appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by admitting the copy of the will to probate. The nephews also appealed, contending that the court erred by denying their request for reimbursement of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not clearly err in determining that the will had not been revoked; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying the nephews’ petition for attorney’s fees. View "In re Estate of Deutsch" on Justia Law

Defendant was twenty-six years old when she was involved in a high-speed pursuit that resulted in life-threatening injuries for a highway patrolman. Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence (DUI) and aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer. Defendant admitted to the part II informations filed for both offenses. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of 42.5 years. Defendant appealed, arguing that her sentence was grossly disproportionate to her crime in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circumstances of this case failed to suggest gross disproportionality. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

John DeBoer and Jill Lenards were involved in a car accident. Lenards sued DeBoer for negligence, limiting her damages claim to pain and suffering. The jury returned a general verdict for DeBoer. The circuit court subsequently denied Lenards’ motion for a new trial. Lenard appealed, arguing that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider whether this was an unavoidable accident, and that the issue of liability should have been directed in her favor. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching Lenards’ liability issues, holding that because Lenards’ damages claim was the subject of a factual dispute, and because the jury returned a general verdict, the Court was precluded from reviewing her liability issues. View "Lenards v. DeBoer" on Justia Law

In 2009, 2010, and 2011, the Dowling Family Partnership and Dowling Brothers Partnership (collectively, the Partnerships) entered into a series of cash farm leases with Midland Farms, LLC. The 2012 crop year lease created a right of first refusal held by the Partnerships regarding the 2013, 2014, and 2015 crop years, a right that ripened into an option when Midland received an offer from Clement Farms and relayed the new price to the Partnerships. In 2012, Midland sought a legal determination that the parties had not extended the prior lease. The circuit court concluded that an enforceable contract existed between the Partnerships and Midland, and the Partnerships exercised their right to lease the property for the 2013 through 2015 crop years. The Partnerships were subsequently restored to possession of the leased property. The Partnerships sued Midland a second time seeking damages for being denied possession of the property from August 2012 to March 2013. Midland sought restitution from the Partnerships for the amount it paid to Clement as reimbursement for Clement’s planting expenses. The circuit court concluded that the Partnerships did not suffer damage, Midland was not entitled to restitution, and Midland had unclean hands. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Midland breached its lease with the Partnerships and that the Partnerships were not unjustly enriched. View "Dowling Family P’ship v. Midland Farms, LLC" on Justia Law