Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance.The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law

Brandon Scott was convicted of grand theft, a Class 5 felony, after he pled guilty to stealing a Ford F-350 pickup. The theft was part of a series of events that included breaking into a store and damaging property. Scott and the State had reached a plea agreement, which included a recommendation for a four-year "cap" at sentencing. However, the circuit court sentenced Scott to a six-year prison term with three years suspended, which Scott argued violated the terms of the plea agreement.The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in Lincoln County, South Dakota, had initially heard the case. The court accepted Scott's guilty plea and moved on to sentencing. During the sentencing hearing, Scott's counsel requested a fully suspended prison sentence concurrent with the sentence Scott was already serving. The State, however, urged the court to impose a four-year penitentiary sentence, coupled with additional suspended time. The court ultimately imposed a six-year prison sentence with three years suspended.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed in part, but vacated and remanded for resentencing due to the circuit court's noncompliance with SDCL 22-6-11, a statute that requires a court to sentence criminal defendants convicted of a Class 5 felony to a term of probation or a fully suspended penitentiary sentence, unless there are aggravating circumstances. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court did not err in considering itself not bound by the parties' plea agreement, nor did it err in finding there was a sufficient factual basis to support Scott's plea. However, the court did not apply the provisions of SDCL 22-6-11 during sentencing, which constituted error. View "State V. Scott" on Justia Law

The case involves James Joseph Lanpher, Jr., who pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer and admitted to being a habitual offender. The charges stemmed from a dangerous high-speed chase during which Lanpher repeatedly fired weapons at pursuing officers. The circuit court sentenced Lanpher to serve two concurrent life sentences to run consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses. Lanpher appealed, claiming his sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment and was an abuse of the circuit court’s discretion.The case was previously reviewed by the circuit court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Lake County, South Dakota. The court found Lanpher guilty and sentenced him to two concurrent life sentences, to be served consecutively to sentences he was already serving for other offenses.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court found that Lanpher's sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court also found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in the imposition of Lanpher’s sentence. The court noted that Lanpher's violent criminal history and demonstrated disregard for human life justified the severity of his sentence. View "State v. Lanpher" on Justia Law

A Mexican national, J.R., who worked seasonally in Sully County, South Dakota, required emergency medical treatment for appendicitis. He was taken to Avera St. Mary’s Hospital in Hughes County, where he received treatment and incurred medical bills totaling over $75,000. J.R. had no health insurance, few assets, and returned to Mexico without paying the bills. Avera sought reimbursement from Sully County under county poor-relief statutes.The Sully County Board of Commissioners denied Avera's application for reimbursement, citing J.R.'s status as a nonresident of Sully County. Avera appealed this decision to the circuit court, which remanded the case back to the Commission for a more detailed factual record. After a hearing, the Commission again denied Avera's claim, determining that J.R. was indigent by design and was not in distress in Sully County at the time the county was notified. Avera appealed this decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Commission's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the county's obligation to support poor persons is statutory, not common law. The court interpreted the poor-relief statutes to require every county to support all poor and indigent persons who have established residency therein. However, the parties agreed that J.R. was not a resident of Sully County. The court found that the county had no statutory obligation to reimburse Avera for J.R.'s emergency medical services, as he was a nonresident indigent who had left Sully County before the Commission learned he was in distress. The court concluded that in these circumstances, where temporary relief had already been administered to the nonresident indigent by a third party in another county, Sully County had no statutory obligation to reimburse Avera for J.R.'s emergency medical services. View "Avera St. Mary’s Hospital V. Sully County" on Justia Law

The case involves Scotlynn Transport, LLC and Plains Towing and Recovery, LLC, disputing the ownership of a semi-tractor. The semi-tractor, owned by Scotlynn, was involved in an accident and subsequently towed by Plains Towing to its impound lot. After Scotlynn paid for the towing services and took possession of the trailer, the semi-tractor remained at the impound lot. Plains Towing, considered a "removal agency" under South Dakota law, sent a notice to Scotlynn and later acquired the title to the semi-tractor using the statutory procedure outlined in SDCL 32-36-8 and 32-36-9. Scotlynn initiated a lawsuit against Plains Towing, alleging several claims related to the disputed ownership of the semi-tractor.The Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, South Dakota, granted Plains Towing's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Plains Towing had complied with SDCL 32-36-8 and lawfully obtained the title to the semi-tractor. Scotlynn appealed, arguing that there were genuine issues of material fact relating to claims raised in Scotlynn’s complaint that were not addressed by the court.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota partially reversed and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of an implied contract between the parties regarding the storage of the tractor. However, the court agreed with the lower court that the "drafting errors" Scotlynn alleged were contained in the notice would not, themselves, preclude obtaining the title under SDCL 32-36-9. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's holdings. View "Scotlynn Transport, LLC v. Plains Towing and Recovery, LLC" on Justia Law

In October 2019, Max Bolden shot and killed Benjamin Donahue outside a club in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Bolden was indicted for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At trial, Bolden claimed that he shot Donahue in self-defense. The circuit court denied Bolden's motions for a judgment of acquittal on the murder charges. The jury found Bolden guilty of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Bolden appealed his first-degree murder conviction on the grounds of insufficient evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court noted that Bolden had used a gun to shoot Donahue point blank in the face without provocation, and then shot him again while he was lying on the ground. The court also pointed out that Bolden had immediately left the scene, fled the state, and disposed of the gun used to shoot Donahue. The court concluded that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Bolden" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the estate of Neil Smeenk. Denise Schipke-Smeenk, Neil's wife, and Ryan Smeenk, Neil's son, are the parties involved. Denise and Neil had executed mutual and reciprocal wills in 2017, along with an agreement that neither would revoke or amend their wills without the other's written consent. However, after their relationship deteriorated, Neil executed a new will without Denise's consent, disinheriting her to the extent allowed under South Dakota law and naming his children as the primary beneficiaries. Neil passed away shortly after. Denise filed a petition for formal, unsupervised probate concerning the 2017 will, and Ryan filed a competing petition to probate the 2019 will.The circuit court determined that Neil's 2019 will was valid and should be admitted into probate. The court concluded that the couple's agreement did not render Neil's 2017 will irrevocable, though it may subject his estate to liability. Denise later filed a motion for approval of a creditor claim in which she proposed to distribute Neil's estate according to the terms of his 2017 will. The circuit court conducted a court trial regarding Denise’s claim, but ultimately denied Denise’s claim, stating that Denise did not demonstrate that the circumstances supported the equitable remedy of specific performance.In the Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota, Denise appealed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to deny Denise’s claim after a court trial. Denise then filed a motion for partial summary judgment relating to her breach of contract claim against the estate of her deceased husband, Neil Smeenk. She changed the type of relief she was requesting; she was now seeking money damages for the breach instead of the specific performance remedy she had pursued unsuccessfully in the previous case. However, the circuit court concluded that Denise was barred from litigating her breach of contract claim against Neil’s estate. Denise appealed this decision, but the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, stating that Denise had a complete and fair opportunity to litigate her breach of contract claim in the prior proceeding. View "Estate Of Smeenk" on Justia Law

Lonnie Reidburn, a self-employed insurance agent, appealed a decision by the South Dakota Department of Labor, Reemployment Assistance Division (Department) that he must repay $24,690 in pandemic unemployment benefits he received. Reidburn's income was based on commissions he received for new policies and renewals, which required in-person visits to clients' homes or businesses. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Reidburn experienced a significant reduction in his ability to procure new policies and renewals because clients did not want him to make in-person visits. As a result, Reidburn's income decreased. He applied for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) through the Department and received benefits for 39 weeks. However, the Department later determined that Reidburn's loss of income was not the direct result of the pandemic and issued a determination of ineligibility.The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the Department's determination of ineligibility, reasoning that the individual decisions of Reidburn's clients to preclude him from entering their homes or places of business were not a direct result of the pandemic. However, the ALJ rejected the Department's at-fault determination and found that Reidburn was not at fault for the overpayment. The ALJ also concluded that Reidburn's request for a waiver was untimely. Reidburn appealed the ALJ's decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the ALJ's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the ALJ's determination that Reidburn was ineligible to receive PUA benefits for 35 of the 39 weeks at issue, based on its recent decision in Bracken v. South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Reemployment Assistance Division. The court declined to address the Department's argument that Reidburn failed to present sufficient evidence to support his testimony that he experienced a significant reduction in services, as the Department did not raise this argument at Reidburn's administrative hearing. The court affirmed the circuit court's denial of Reidburn's motion for attorney fees. View "Reidburn v. Department of Labor & Regulation" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the will of Dennis Schmeling, who left his farmland to his sister-in-law, Sharon, in his 2021 will. Two of Dennis's brothers and one nephew contested the will, alleging undue influence by Sharon. The Estate moved for summary judgment, arguing that the contestants could not show that the devise was the result of undue influence, based on a previous court decision (In re Estate of Tank). The circuit court agreed with the Estate, concluding that there was no evidence showing that Dennis had a testamentary disposition toward the contestants and that the contestants did not present evidence showing that Sharon participated in the drafting of the disputed will or engaged in acts of undue influence. The contestants appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case. The Supreme Court found that the circuit court had erred by granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the parties and by granting the Estate's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that there were material issues of fact in dispute on the contestants' claim that the 2021 Will was the result of Sharon’s undue influence. Therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the Estate’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court also found that the circuit court erred in denying the contestants' partial motion for summary judgment, as it was undisputed that neither the 2002 Will nor the 2021 Will contains language expressly disinheriting the contestants. View "In re Estate Of Schmeling" on Justia Law

Tristen Simonsen was convicted on two counts of solicitation of a minor, one count of sexual contact with a minor under the age of sixteen, and one count of rape in the fourth degree. The court did not specify during sentencing whether it intended to treat each charge as a separate transaction. After sentencing, the court signed four separate judgments of conviction and ordered each conviction to be served consecutively. Later the same day, the court held a hearing to clarify its intent, determining that each charge was the result of a separate transaction. Simonsen appealed, arguing that the court improperly enhanced his sentence after it had already commenced.The Supreme Court of South Dakota disagreed, ruling that the circuit court's post-sentencing declaration to treat each charge as a separate transaction only affected Simonsen's future eligibility for parole, not his sentence. The court also rejected Simonsen's argument that his constitutional rights were violated by his absence from the post-sentencing hearing, noting that the hearing only impacted his parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "State V. Simonsen" on Justia Law