The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld;
2) Stare Decisis overturned, upholding previous dissenting view of Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry;
3) For-Profit corporation (Black Hills Advocate LLC) not eligible for appointment as guardian.
Summaries follows:
STATE v. HOLY, 2025 S.D. 19: After having his Motion to Suppress Evidence denied, Defendant secured the following result in the trial court:
[¶13.] At a subsequent court trial, the circuit court relied upon stipulated facts to find [Defendant] guilty of both counts. The court suspended a prison sentence and ordered supervised probation for the possession of a controlled substance charge and imposed court costs for the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charge.
This appeal focuses exclusively on the Motion to Suppress with Defendant arguing, “that police officers unreasonably extended the stop by asking about contraband without any level of suspicion.” The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s argument and affirmed. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
EARLL v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE, 2025 S.D. 20: Motor vehicle accident resulted in death. Parents and Estate of Deceased collected $25,000 from tortfeasor’s liability insurer and then collected $75,000 from UIM (Underinsured Motorist) coverage of vehicle being driven by Deceased. Parents and Estate sought additional coverage of $250,000 under “separate motor vehicle policy they purchased from Farmers Mutual, which provided coverage for two vehicles owned by the [family] that were not involved in the accident.” The trial court ruled for Farmers Mutual, applying the precedent of De Smet Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Pourier, 2011 S.D. 47, ¶ 12, 802 N.W.2d 447, 451–52 (a 3/2 decision “which held that an ‘owned but not insured’ exclusion for UIM coverage was enforceable and not void as against public policy.”) In this appeal, family requests the SD Supreme Court to overrule the Pourier decision, and the SD Supreme Court does so! In overturning precedent, the Court handed down a lengthy opinion which “consider[s] the [four prongs of] the well-established doctrine of stare decisis.” (the four prongs being, “(1) Quality of prior decision, (2) Workability, (3) Consistency, (4)Subsequent developments, and (5) Extent of Reliance.”) NOTE: The discussion by the SD Supreme Court in connection with the articulated criteria needed to overturn stare decisis precedent is traceable to its 2024 decision involving Governor Noem’s Request concerning potential conflicts of interest for legislators and an older 1920 Decision. A concluding paragraph of the opinion states:
[¶48.] While we acknowledge Pourier’s careful reasoning by a sharply divided Court, our review of the public policy of this State for UM/UIM coverage and the Janus factors lead us to conclude that Pourier is an outlier in this Court’s decisions. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse our decision in Pourier and we hold that the “owned but not insured” exclusion to UIM coverage in motor vehicle policies—when used to deny coverage to an insured individual under circumstances like those in this case—violates South Dakota public policy.
NOTE: Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry’s dissenting opinion in Pourier was examined and found to be the proper rationale by this unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF FLYTE, 2025 S.D. 21: In adjudicating conflicting requests [by Daughter and Son] to be appointed guardian of a dementia-afflicted parent who owns land worth more than $2 million, the trial court, acting sua sponte, appointed “Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation” as guardian. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:
[¶56.] We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint [Daughter] as Gerda’s guardian and conservator. We also conclude that SDCL 29A-5-304 does not restrict the circuit court’s authority to appoint a third-party guardian or conservator sua sponte where such appointment is in the best interests of the protected person. However, we hold that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize for-profit entities to be appointed as guardians or conservators, with the exception of statutorily qualified banks and trust companies. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s appointment of BHA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we award [Son] one-half of his requested appellate attorney fee.
This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .