Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Julie and Grant Rush were married in 1990 in Pennsylvania. In 2012, Grant left the marital home in Pennsylvania and moved into his mother’s home in South Dakota. That same year, Julie filed a “Uniform Support Petition” in Pennsylvania seeking child and spousal support. Five days later, Grant filed for a divorce in South Dakota. The circuit court dismissed the divorce action for lack of jurisdiction and on the grounds of the forum non conveniens doctrine, concluding that Grant was not a true South Dakota resident at the time he filed for divorce and that, under the forum non conveniens doctrine, Pennsylvania was the more appropriate and convenient forum for this divorce matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because there was substantial evidence in the record that Grant established actual residency in South Dakota in 2012 for purposes other than obtaining a divorce, the circuit court erred when it concluded that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the parties in this proceeding; and (2) the circuit court erred in dismissing Grant’s divorce action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Grant properly commenced the divorce action in South Dakota and no divorce action had ever been commenced in Pennsylvania. View "Rush v. Rush" on Justia Law

Mother brought an action against Father to establish Father’s child support obligation and to determine arrearages. A child support referee recommended that Father receive a credit for mortgage payments as well as for food, clothing, and school supplies Father had purchased for the children after the parties’ separation and when he was absent from the home. The circuit court adopted the recommendation in part and rejected it in part. Specifically, the court allowed a credit for clothing and school supplies but gave Father no credit for mortgage payments and food, concluding (1) Father was financially bound to make mortgage payments and received benefits from the mortgage payments; and (2) the referee clearly erred in finding that Mother’s testimony denying that Father provided food was not credible. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to accept the referee’s recommendation, holding (1) there was no significance in the fact that Father had a contractual obligation to pay the mortgage, and Mother and the children also received the benefit of the payments; and (2) the referee did not clearly err in making his credibility finding, and the circuit court erred in concluding otherwise. View "State ex rel. Tegegne v. Andalo" on Justia Law

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