Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Peggy Hewitt was involved in two separate rear-end collisions. In the first accident, in 2007, Hewitt was injured after her vehicle was rear-ended at a stop sign by Dwight Berens. In the second accident, in 2008, while Hewitt's vehicle was stopping to avoid a collision with a deer, a vehicle driven by Shelli Felderman struck Hewitt's rear bumper. Hewitt's lawsuits against Berens and Felderman were combined in a single trial in 2012. The jury found both Berens and Felderman negligent and awarded damages to Hewitt against Berens. The jury, however, awarded no damages to Hewitt against Felderman, finding that Felderman's negligence was not a legal cause of Hewitt's injuries. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by (1) denying Hewitt's motions for a directed verdict, for a new trial on the issue of damages, and for attorney's fees and costs; (2) denying Felderman's motion for costs and disbursements as the prevailing party; and (3) allowing testimony regarding future medical procedures.View "Hewitt v. Felderman" on Justia Law

Lester and Harriet Shoup created an inter vivos trust. After Lester and Harriet died, the couple's only children, Gregory and Larry Shoup, filed a motion to terminate the trust. Gregory and Larry argued that the trust had fulfilled its purpose because it only provided for Lester and Harriet during their lives and no trust provision existed directing disposition of the remaining trust assets. Lee and Linda Shoup, Gregory's children, objected, arguing that the trust had not fulfilled its purpose and that two letters found with the original trust document provided instructions on the disposition of trust assets. The circuit court terminated the trust. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly determined that the letters would substantially change the trust if given effect, but that the change was prohibited because the trustees did not consent to the letters in writing; and (2) correctly concluded that the trust had fulfilled its purpose and should be terminated. View "In re Sunray Holdings Trust" on Justia Law

After Mary Lou Fox died, Plaintiff, Mary Lou's daughter and the administratrix of Mary Lou's estate, sued Mary Lou's former husband, Robert Fox. Plaintiff alleged that Mary Lou jointly owned 960 acres of farmland with Robert, that Robert deprived Mary Lou of her ownership interest in the land, and that Plaintiff was thereby deprived of an inheritance from Mary Lou. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Robert, concluding that Mary Lou had no ownership interest in the 960 acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each cause of action brought by Plaintiff failed because Mary Lou had no claim to a right of ownership in the 960 acres and Plaintiff had no authority supporting her claims. View "Niesche v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

In 2002, Petitioner, an inmate serving a fifteen-year sentence, pleaded guilty to possession of an unauthorized article by an inmate. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging several constitutional violations, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to preserve Petitioner's right to appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied the petition based on prejudice to the State caused by Petitioner's failure to timely file his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption of prejudice to the State in its ability to respond to the application due to Petitioner's failure to timely file the application.View "Davis v. Weber" on Justia Law

Christine and David Colburn leased property from Robert Hartshorn and agreed to care for Hartshorn's cattle. Neither the terms of the cattle care agreement or the lease agreement were reduced to writing. After a dispute, the Colburns served on Hartshorn an agister's lien for caring for Hartshorn's cattle. The Colburns also brought an action to recover amounts due for their care of Hartshorn's cattle and to foreclose the lien. Ultimately, the Colburns received a court order to sell the calves. The circuit court ruled that the Colburns were entitled to one half the net calf sale proceeds from the sale but found the agister's lien invalid under the terms of the parties' implied contract because the cattle were cared for on Hartshorn's land and not the Colburns' land. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that nothing in the state's laws governing agister's liens defeats their validity when cattle are entrusted to a caretaker on the cattle owner's land. Remanded.View "Colburn v. Hartshorn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1995, Petitioner was convicted of child rape, sexual contact, disseminating harmful material to minors, and indecent exposure. Petitioner was acquitted in the same trial of raping two other children. Approximately a decade later, in a habeas corpus proceeding, the counseling records for the child Petitioner was convicted of raping were first disclosed. The habeas court denied Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus and Petitioner's amended motion for a certificate of probable cause, concluding that Petitioner had not shown "a reasonable probability that the specific timing of the disclosure would have created reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds considering the entire record." The Supreme Court issued a certificate of probable cause, resulting in this appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not denied due process because of the State's failure to produce the counseling records, as there was no reasonable probability that, had the evidence been timely disclosed to the defense, the result of Petitioner's trial would have been different.View "Thompson v. Weber" on Justia Law

Plaintiff petitioned for a domestic abuse protection order against Defendant pursuant to S.D. Codified Laws chapter 25-10, arguing that Defendant's conduct constituted stalking under S.D. Codified Laws 22-19A-1 and that stalking under section 22-19A-1 constituted domestic abuse under section 25-10-1(1) if the stalking involved family or household members. The circuit court granted the protection order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly interpreted section 25-10-1(1) and that a domestic abuse protection order based on stalking under chapter 25-10 did not require a criminal conviction for stalking under section 22-19A-1. View "Trumm v. Cleaver" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three counts of distribution of a controlled drug or substance and three counts of possession of a controlled drug or substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the circuit court (1) did not violate Defendant’s due process rights in denying his motion to suppress an in-court identification stemming from an improper photo lineup; (2) did not err in refusing Defendant’s proposed jury instruction regarding cross-racial identification; and (3) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. View "State v. Chuol" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned property located in Lincoln County that was unplatted and zoned for agricultural use. The property owner voluntarily petitioned for its annexation to the City of Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls subsequently adopted an annexation resolution under S.D. Codified Laws 9-4-1 annexing the property to be developed for a Walmart store. Neighbors of the property, joined as “Save Our Neighborhood,” petitioned the circuit court for writs of prohibition and certiorari, seeking to invalidate the City’s annexation resolution and to prohibit the City from rezoning the property. Petitioners argued that S.D. Codified Laws 9-4-5 required the City to obtain approval from the Lincoln County Board of County Commissioners before adopting a rule to annex the property. The circuit court denied the petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Petitioners’ writs of certiorari and prohibition, holding that the Legislature did not intend section 9-4-5 to apply to a resolution adopted for a voluntary petition for annexation under section 9-4-1. View "Save our Neighborhood v. City of Sioux Falls" on Justia Law

Ten-month-old Kimimila Win Sunny Sarah Iron Cloud (Kimi) died while being cared for Jolyn Erickson. Kelly Laughlin was present when Kimi died from positional asphyxiation in her car seat. Prudence Millea, as special administrator for Kimi’s estate, brought a negligence action against Erickson and Laughlin for Kimi’s death. Default judgment was entered against Erickson, and the circuit court granted summary judgment for Lauglin, concluding that he had no legal duty to Kimi. Millea appealed, arguing (1) Laughlin interfered in Kimi’s care by instructing Erickson to place Kimi in her car seat and in the bedroom, and Laughlin had influence over Erickson such that she deferred to him in providing care for Kimi; and (2) therefore, Laughlin assumed a legal duty to provide reasonable care for Kimi. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Laughlin had no legal duty to care for Kimi. View "Millea v. Erickson" on Justia Law