Thursday, August 21, 2025
Three Reversals by SD Supreme Court
Thursday, August 14, 2025
Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court
Thursday, August 7, 2025
Overbroad Protection Order Reversed
The SD Supreme Court
handed down 1 new decision this morning.
Summary is set forth below.
1) Overbroad Protection Order Reversed;
Summary
follows:
WAGNER
v. TOVAR, 2025 S.D. 44: Ex-girlfriend sought Order of Protection, on her behalf
and also on behalf of two children, against Father of Children. The Trial Court, “found that domestic abuse occurred and issued
a five-year domestic permanent protection order that required [Father] not to
have any contact with [ex-girlfriend] and their two children.” The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that, “The circuit court abused its discretion
when it prohibited all contact between [Father] and his children for five years.” The Court, “remand[ed] to the circuit court with direction to conduct such
further proceedings as are necessary and to amend the protection order to
provide appropriate contact and visitation between [Father]and the children
that is consistent with the best interests of the children.” This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Justice Myren.
This
decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
Thursday, July 24, 2025
5 Reversals
The SD Supreme Court handed down five decisions this morning, each one reversing the lower court’s ruling.
1) Right of 1st refusal for sale of cattle;
2) Communication in official proceeding is absolutely privileged;
3) Employer prevails in Work Comp proceeding;
4) Plaintiff survives statute of limitations ruling; and
5) Punitive damage award vacated.
Summaries follows:
ALEXANDER v. ESTATE OF HOBART, 2025 S.D. 39: This is a dispute over an alleged right of 1st refusal in regard to sale of cattle and the right to graze on federal land. The nature of this dispute, the result at the trial level and the result on appeal is summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Rodney Alexander and Steve Hobart entered into an agreement giving Alexander a right of first refusal to purchase Steve’s cattle and to have Steve’s national forest livestock grazing permit transferred to him. They, along with Steve’s son Nick, later signed an addendum clarifying that the agreement extended to Nick. Several years later, Nick sold the cattle, and the permit was transferred to a third party without the Hobarts first notifying Alexander and giving him the opportunity to exercise the right of first refusal. Alexander sued the Hobarts for breach of contract and fraud. Steve and Nick moved for judgment on the pleadings alleging the contract was void for impossibility of performance or, alternatively, that it was for an unlawful object. They also claimed the right of first refusal is an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of property. The circuit court granted the motion on the grounds of impossible performance. Alexander appeals, asserting that the circuit court erred in concluding the contract was void. We reverse the circuit court’s order and judgment on the pleadings. Additionally, through notice of review, Nick seeks review of the circuit court’s ruling that the right of first refusal is not an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property. We affirm the circuit court’s ruling on that issue.
This is a unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
ROWE v. ROWE, 2025 S.D. 40: South Dakota law, SDCL 20-11-5(2), establishes a privilege to communications made “in any legislative or judicial proceeding, or in any other official proceeding authorized by law.” Plaintiff filed suit, “for tortious interference with a business relationship” based upon a letter written by the Defendant (Plaintiff’s ex-wife, supported by her two daughters) to a Tribal Land Board, resulting in a cancellation of Plaintiff’s lease of certain tribal land. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the privilege afforded by SDCL 20-11-5(2), is an absolute one. The trial court denied the motion. The SD Supreme Court permitted this intermediate appeal and ruled for the Defendants, stating:
[¶40.] We conclude that the absolute privilege provided in SDCL 20-11-5(2) applies to claims of tortious interference with business relationships, and that the elements of the privilege are satisfied here. Further, although this privilege is an affirmative defense that must be pled, the issue of privilege was tried, within the summary judgment proceedings, by the implied consent of the parties.
This decision makes clear that the privilege applies to claims for tortious interference with business relationships. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. Circuit Judge Kelderman sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.
PHAM v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, 2025 S.D. 41: Employer accepted a “work comp” claim and made payments for two years without a hearing or settlement agreement as to compensability. Thereafter Employer ceased making payments because of lack of causation. The ALJ upheld the Employer’s decision. The Circuit Court reversed, holding for the Employee on the basis that the Employer had not met its burden on the issue of causation, “reasoning that by initially accepting [Employee’s] claims as a compensable injury, the burden shifted to [Employer] to show a change in circumstances to justify suspending benefits.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the ALJ’s ruling. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Circuit Judge Knoff sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern.
NELSON v. TINKCOM, 2025 S.D. 42: Plaintiff filed suit, “assert[ing] eight claims stemming from its alleged interest in a coin shop as well as a claim for conversion of its property.” Via a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and without filing an Answer, Defendants requested a dismissal based upon the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the dismissal. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
[¶35.] We affirm the circuit court’s assessment of the accrual date of the first six of the Business Interest Claims. However, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of those claims because the court did not resolve the defensive theories advanced by [Plaintiff] that could prevent the application of the statute of limitations. We remand so that those theories may be resolved in the ordinary course of this litigation. Similarly, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the tortious interference with a business relationship and civil conspiracy claims against the [Defendants]. Finally, we reverse the dismissal of the conversion claims.
This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter filed a brief, 2 paragraph, concurring opinion which addresses a litigant’s ability to raise the statute of limitations defense by way of a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
GOLDENVIEW READY-MIX, LLC v. GRANGAARD CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2025 S.D. 43: The jury’s award of punitive damages on a breach of contractual good faith claim is vacated on appeal by the SD Supreme Court. Although the case was submitted to the jury on the theory of fraud also, the jury did not find fraud. Still, the verdict form permitted an award of punitive damages and the jury so utilized it. In deciding to vacate the punitive damage award and not remand for re-submission to a jury, the Court stated:
[¶67.] Having concluded the implied obligation of good faith issue is preserved and properly before us, we reverse in part, vacating the punitive damages award. However, we decline to order a new trial on remand and affirm the circuit court’s judgment in other respects because we conclude there is insufficient evidence that “but for the error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Braun, 2024 S.D. 83, ¶ 26, 16 N.W.3d at 244 (citation omitted).
The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice Salter.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
Thursday, July 17, 2025
Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court Today
The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) claim for damages for spam e-mail rejected for non-resident;
2) Medical Malpractice claim rejected because it was filed one day too late;
3) Restitution order reversed because of lack of causal connection with offense.
Summaries follows:
LAPIN v. ZEETOGROUP, 2025 S.D. 36: Pro se plaintiff, aggravated by spam e-mails, filed this suit under SDCL 37-24-47 which provides:
No person may advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from South Dakota or sent to a South Dakota electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:
(1) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party’s domain name without the permission of the third party;
(2) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information;
(3) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.
The trial court dismissed the action because plaintiff was not a “resident” of South Dakota, as required by SDCL 37-24-41(14)(c). (Defendant argued that Plaintiff was a “digital nomad.”) The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This is a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion by Justice Kern. NOTE: the trial court denied Defendant’s request for attorney fees and costs, but no appeal was taken by Defendant on this ruling.
PAULSEN v. AVERA MCKENNAN, 2025 S.D. 37: Plaintiff (who was experiencing severe bleeding) was given a hysterectomy by Defendants. Thereafter she brought this medical malpractice suit for surgery conducted without her consent. The parties agree that “that the two-year repose period began to run on December 15, 2021, and that [Plaintiff] commenced her lawsuit on December 15, 2023.” The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding that her lawsuit was commenced one day too late. Also, although the Plaintiff “requested the opportunity to complete discovery before the court ruled on the summary judgment motion,” the trial court did not do so. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
INTEREST OF J.W., 2025 S.D. 38: The trial court’s order requiring juvenile to pay restitution of $15,000 was reversed by the SD Supreme Court because there was “no causal connection between the offense for which he was adjudicated—accessory to a crime stemming from his act of lying to the police—and the victim’s damages.” This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
These decisions may be accessed at
Thursday, July 10, 2025
Three Decisions by SD Supreme Court Today
The
SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Dispute between owner of dairy farm and
feed mill resolved;
2) Dismissal for failure
to prosecute reversed;
3) State of SD prevails
in dispute with Lincoln County citizens over proposed prison site.
Summaries
follows:
BERWALD
v. STAN’S, INC., 2025 S.D. 33: This is a dispute between the owner/operator of
a Dairy Farm and a “local feed mill.” The dispute and proceedings in the trial
court are summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s Opinon:
[¶1.] Calvin Berwald operated a dairy farm as
Sokota Dairy, near Alpena, South Dakota. He filed this action alleging that
Stan’s, Inc. (Stan’s), a local feed mill, breached an agreement for Berwald to
purchase soybean meal by prematurely cancelling it. Berwald also alleged that
Stan’s breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a
particular purpose arising from his separate purchase of calf starter, claiming
that contaminated calf starter caused the death of more than 200 of his cattle.
The circuit court granted Stan’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of
contract claim based upon accord and satisfaction. Following trial, a jury
found that Stan’s breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but
that no damages were caused by the breach. Berwald appeals, arguing the circuit
court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and in
denying his motion for a new trial.
The SD Supreme Court Affirmed in a unanimous decision (5-0),
with a 25 page opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
OLSON v. HURON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 2025 S.D. 34:
The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice (and related claims) action on
the basis of Plaintiff’s alleged “failure to prosecute.” The
SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating in the concluding paragraph of
the opinion:
[¶57.] The circuit court disregarded record
activity within one year of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and nothing in
the record rises to the level of egregiousness of our previous cases dealing
with Rule 41(b) dismissals. Rather, the delays here were neither unexplained
nor unreasonable. We conclude, therefore, that the court’s dismissal under both
SDCL 15-11-11 and Rule 41(b) was not within the range of permissible choices,
and we reverse the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for
failure to prosecute. However, we affirm the court’s order denying Dr. Miner’s
motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with 25 page
opinion authored by Justice Salter.
JENSEN, HOFFMAN, ET AL v. DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, 2025 S.D.
35: This action was filed against the State in regard to the selection of land
in Lincoln County for the site of a new prison facility. The trial court dismissed the action. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, “on the basis that the
controversy here is not justiciable because the Appellants lack the right to
enforce local zoning regulations against the State in a declaratory judgment
action.” The
Court did “not
reach the merits of the State’s sovereign immunity and preemption claims.” This
ruling is unanimous (5-0), with 18 page opinion authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
Thursday, July 3, 2025
two new decisions by SD Supreme Court today
The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Reversal & Remand, Civil Dispute
2) Criminal Conviction Affirmed;
Summaries
follows:
JED
SPECTRUM, INC. v. STOAKES, 2025 S.D. 31: The first and last paragaphs of this
opinion explain what is happening:
[¶1.] Bighorn Construction, LLC (Bighorn) and JED Spectrum, Inc.
(JED) each filed a echanic’s lien against property owned by Keith Stoakes and
thereafter jointly instituted this action to foreclose on the liens. Stoakes
answered, denying the validity of the liens and asserting counterclaims for
slander of title against both companies and breach of contract, promissory
estoppel, and fraud against JED. After a three-day bench trial, the circuit
court issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law denying JED’s and
Bighorn’s claims for lien foreclosure and ruling in favor of Stoakes on his
slander of title claims against both companies. The court awarded Stoakes
$252,225.27 in damages on his slander of title claims and $33,394.20 in
attorney fees. The court denied relief on the parties’ remaining claims.
Bighorn and JED appeal, arguing the court erred in ruling in favor of Stoakes
on his slander of title claim and in calculating damages. By notice of review,
Stoakes challenges the denial of relief on his promissory estoppel claim and
associated request for attorney fees. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
[¶51.] We reverse the
circuit court’s order and judgment in favor of Stoakes on the slander of title
claims and affirm the court’s order denying Stoakes’s promissory estoppel
claim. We also affirm the court’s judgment for attorney fees in favor of Stoakes
in the amount of $33,394.20.10F 11 Given these rulings, we also deny Stoakes’s
request for appellate attorney fees.
Unanimous
(5-0) decision, with opinion by Justice DeVaney.
STATE
v. GEIST, 2025 S.D. 32: This opinion is
summarized in the opening paragraph:
[¶1.] Following a jury trial, Michael David Geist was convicted
and sentenced for simple assault on a law enforcement officer and criminal
trespass. Geist appeals, alleging the circuit court abused its discretion by
admitting into evidence a recording from an officer’s body camera under the
silent witness theory. We affirm.
Unanimous (5-0)
decision, opinion authored by Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .