Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brett Jarman applied to the Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Training Commission for law enforcement certification seeking certification of qualification as a candidate for county sheriff. After a hearing, the Commission denied the application, concluding that Jarman did not meet the minimum qualifications for law enforcement certification due to lack of good moral character. The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although Jarman engaged in conduct that a jury determined to be not criminal and the resulting legal actions were expunged, the Commission properly acted within its authority in denying Jarman’s certification based on that conduct; and (2) the Commission’s findings were established by a preponderance of the evidence. View "In re Certifiability of Jarmon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the premeditated killing of Robert Thunderhawk. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court’s decision to admit into evidence a recording of a 911 call and in allowing two officers to testify about several out-of-court statements made by Defendant was not arbitrary or outside the range of permissible choices; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to have concluded that Defendant acted with premeditation. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

The City of Hot Springs published a request for competitive proposals from private entities for utilization of real property owned by the City. Both Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. (“Lien”) and Croell Redi-Mix (“Croell”) submitted proposals. The City accepted Lien’s proposal, and a final contract was negotiated. Croell subsequently commenced this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to require the City to reject all proposals and restart the process, contending that the contract involved the procurement of services and that the City had not followed the services procurement requirements of S.D. Codified Laws 5-18A-6 and 5-18A-7. Lien argued that the contract was for the lease of real property, and therefore, the service procurement statutes did not apply. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Lien and the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City’s contract with Lien involved the lease of the City’s property rather than the procurement of services, and because the City followed the statutory leasing procedures, summary judgment was properly granted. View "Lowe v. City of Hot Springs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against Barker & Little, Inc. (BLI). BLI was a general partner in Barker & Little Limited Partnership III (BLLP) and the operating entity for the management of rental properties, including property titled to BLLP. Doug Hamilton owned BLI, BLLP and Barker & Little Manufactured Homes, Inc. (BLMHI). Great Western Bank extended a line of credit to BLI secured by mobile homes and rent-to-own contracts owned by BLMHI. The Bank later initiated foreclosure proceedings against BLMHI and BLLP. BLI was named as a codefendant in each action. The Bank, however, did not join Plaintiff as a defendant or notify her of the foreclosure actions. The Bank and Hamilton privately negotiated a settlement agreement. When she learned of the Bank’s foreclosure actions, Plaintiff initiated this action against the Bank. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Bank. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff did not have an interest in, or lien on, the foreclosure property on the date the Bank filed its foreclosure actions, and therefore, there were no genuine issues of material fact, and the Bank was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Peters v. Great Western Bank, Inc." on Justia Law

Sister and Brother were co-trustees of a family Trust established by the siblings' parents. Before their mother died, she entered into a contract for deed with Brother for the sale of 480 acres of trust farmland. After the mother died, the siblings stipulated for court supervision of the Trust. Within the Trust action, Sister sued Brother and his wife for undue influence on his contract for deed with their mother. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Brother, concluding that Sister’s claim of undue influence was barred by the statute of limitations and that any oral agreement associated with the contract for deed was barred by the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Sister did not timely bring her claim for undue influence, the circuit court correctly ruled that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) because Sister sought to enforce her asserted interest in the sale of real estate, the circuit court correctly ruled that any oral agreement regarding the real estate was barred by the statute of frauds. View "In re Matheny Family Trust" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to committing manslaughter in the first degree and was sentenced to an eighty-five-year term of imprisonment. Appellant did not directly appeal his sentence or the sentencing court’s acceptance of his guilty plea. Appellant later filed an amended application of writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel decided to forgo a motion to suppress statements Appellant made to law enforcement officers and because defense counsel failed properly to advise Appellant on his right to appeal the sentencing court’s decision. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) defense counsel had sound legal reasons for the decision not to move to suppress the incriminating statements; and (2) Appellant was not prejudiced by missing the opportunity to appeal his sentence or the circuit court’s acceptance of his guilty plea. View "McDonough v. Weber" on Justia Law

While two police officers were searching Defendant’s vehicle, Defendant waited with another officer in a patrol car. Suddenly, without warning, Defendant began attacking the officer inside the car. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of aggravated assault, among other offenses. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support proof that Defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the officer and that the assault occurred under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. View "State v. Miland" on Justia Law

Before his death in 2011, Donald Hyde executed a will and then a revocable trust that he funded with real estate and a brokerage account containing stock. Under the trust, the stock was to be distributed to charities upon Hyde’s death. However, in a post-trust codicil, Hyde bequeathed the stock to his siblings. Before his death, Hyde also deeded trust real estate to siblings and loaned his sister money that he obtained from the trust brokerage account. After the circuit court supervising the trust made its findings and determinations, and charities and Hyde’s sister appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining (1) the post-trust codicil did not modify the trust; (2) the trust should not be reformed to distribute the stock to the siblings; (3) the loan to the sister should be repaid to Hyde’s estate rather than his trust; (4) the deeds conveying property to Hyde’s siblings were validly delivered before Hyde’s death; and (5) the charities failed to meet their burden of proving that some of Hyde’s dispositions were the result of undue influence. View "In re Donald Hyde Trust" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from Plaintiff’s purchase from David Bisson of seventy heifers whose health certifications were incorrect and origin could not be determined. As a result, the heifers had to be quarantined for approximately five months. Plaintiff sued Defendants, including Bisson, Mihm Transportation Co. and Paul Radloff, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit and civil conspiracy. The circuit court entered a default summary judgment against Bisson for fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit in the amount of $100,004 in actual damages and $1 million in punitive damages. After a trial on the remaining claims, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff on the civil conspiracy claim as to Mihm and Radloff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in failing to impose upon Bisson, Mihm, and Radloff joint and several liability for the totality of the summary judgment award, including punitive damages; and (2) did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law against defendant Rod Spartz. View "Huether v. Bisson" on Justia Law

Cynthia Ann Arch filed a petition and affidavit for a domestic abuse protection order against her brother, Myril Arch. The protection order hearing proceeded after it was twice rescheduled. Myril was absent from the hearing, but Myril’s attorney appeared at the hearing on Myril’s behalf, authorized to present a defense. The circuit court proceeded to grant the protection order based on default. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the protection order by a default judgment where Myril appeared at the protecting order hearing by counsel and was authorized to present his defense. View "Arch v. Arch" on Justia Law