Three Reversals

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) Defense verdict in personal injury action reversed; 2) 2nd ruling for liability insurer reversed; 3) Expert on “false confessions” rejected. Summaries follows: HAMER v. DUFFY, CORNERSTONE POURED FOUNDATIONS, INC., 2026 S.D. 4: This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury ruled against the plaintiffs. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge committed several errors: 1) error to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses tendered by Plaintiffs; 2) error in denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to “to assert violations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations [as set forth at] 49 C.F.R. § 392.3”; 3) error to not instruct jury in regard to of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney KAISER TRUCKING, INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL, 2026 S.D. 5: In this case the tortfeasor’s liability insurer is contesting coverage. In a previous appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the insurer. Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2022 S.D. 64, 981 N.W.2d 645. On remand, the trial court once again granted summary judgment for the liability insurer. Once again, the SD Supreme Court reverses. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney. STATE v. HUANTE, 2026 S.D. 6: This is a 1st degree murder prosecution in Rapid City. The Defendant finally gave a confession, after being told that he failed his polygraph and that the investigators “knew” he shot the victim. The Defense claimed a “false confession” and put forward an expert witness to provide testimony on false confessions. The trial court ruled that the “false confessions expert” would be allowed to testify. The State took an intermediate appeal to the SD Supreme Court which reversed the trial judge’s decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a (4-1) decision with the majority opinion authored by Justice Salter on reassignment. Justice Myren filed a dissenting opinion in which he states: [¶90.] In my view, the majority opinion requires [the Defense] to satisfy a standard that is more demanding than Daubert requires and does not apply the appropriate level of deference required by the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to this case. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Med Mal Action Reinstated by SD Supreme Court

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Plaintiffs’ malpractice action reinstated, Summary follows: WALTON v. HURON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, 2026 S.D. 3: This is a medical malpractice action filed against a Doctor and also Huron Regional Medical Center. The patient, having been previously diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, filed this action claiming that he “suffered a hypoxic brain injury from the administration of high dosages of opiates and the failure to properly monitor him while being treated for testicular pain.” His wife joined as co-plaintiff. Plaintiffs relied on a report. Plaintiff relied on the proposed testimony of Dr. Adler, serving as a “causation expert.” The trial court granted Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the testimony of Dr. Adler and then granted Defendants Summary Judgment. The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding as follows: [¶52.] [T]he circuit court abused its discretion in excluding his opinions. In particular, the court failed to apply the Daubert reliability standards to the differential diagnosis methodology, including all of the information and data relied upon by Dr. Adler, to arrive at his opinions. “When a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61, ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). We reverse the circuit court’s decision excluding Dr. Adler’s opinions and testimony, including the qEEG evidence. This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Prenuptial Agreement Upheld

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Prenuptial Agreement Upheld, Summary follows: ESTATE OF WEBB, 2026 S.D. 2: At the ages of 57 and 29, prospective H & W executed a prenuptial agreement, “after dating for nearly a year.” In the agreement, “[W] waived right to claim any share of [H's] estate after his death.” The marriage was conducted at an attorney’s office in Faith, SD, in the aftermath of the Atlas Blizzard on October 11, 2013. The prenuptial agreement was signed shortly before the civil ceremony. Upon H’s death 8 years later, W sought an elective share of his estate and also a family allowance. The trial court granted W a family allowance but denied her request for an elective share, upholding the prenuptial agreement. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. The Court’s opinion is authored by Retired Justice Kern. Justice Salter filed a brief opinion, concurring in result but also dissenting in part. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Improper use of Collateral Estoppel warrants reversal and new trial

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Improper use of Collateral Estoppel warrants reversal and new trial, Summary follows: ESTATE OF O'NEILL, 2026 S.D. 1: Son sought probate of his mother’s last Will which gave him the entire estate, to the exclusion of his siblings. Siblings alleged “undue influence.” The trial court relied upon findings in a civil dispute between Son and a brother, for the purpose of narrowing the jury’s consideration of the issues, resulting in an adverse verdict for Son. Son appeals. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating: [¶42.] The circuit court erred in wholesale admitting findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding issues that were not identical to issues in the resent case and not necessary or essential to the prior judgment. By then instructing the jury that all of the findings—including credibility determinations and specific statements that Tony had been dishonest with Rick and the court—and instructing the jury to consider those findings and conclusions as established, the court effectively foreclosed the jury’s ability to undertake its own independent assessment of the witnesses’ credibility on the issues more closely connected to the Respondents’ undue influence claim. We reverse and remand for a new trial. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. This scholarly opinion presents a thorough discussion of the doctrine of “Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion,” as it has evolved in South Dakota. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

referral fee dispute regarding accounting services for credit cards

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. My summary is set forth below. 1) Dispute regarding referral fee for accounting services for credit cards; Summary follows: LJP CONSULTING, LLC v. VERVENT, INC., 2025 S.D. 74: This dispute involves accounting services for the servicing of credit card accounts. In particular, this dispute involves the payment of referral fees in regard to the accounts referred to Defendant’s predecessor in title by Plaintiff and whether Defendant was/is required to continue to make the referral fee payments. A jury determined that Defendant was liable for payment of “$1,000,064.75 for unpaid referral fees.” The trial judge then entered a permanent injunction in regard to payment of future fees. The SD Supreme Court lowered the damage award and reversed and vacated the permanent injunction, stating: [¶48.] We affirm the circuit court’s determination that the Referral Agreement was not terminable at the will of Vervent. We reverse the court’s denial of Vervent’s Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law and vacate the circuit court’s final judgment and order granting a permanent injunction. We remand for the entry of a judgment determining, as a matter of law, that Vervent’s liability for referral fees ended after it acquired First Equity and amending the damages award accordingly. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Two New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) Summary Judgment for Defendants affirmed in dispute over purchase agreement; 2) False Report Conviction reinstated over fabricated false breath test; Summaries follow: TRIGGER ENERGY HOLDINGS v. STEVENS, 2025 S.D. 72: Plaintiffs sued to reform a purchase agreement which they had signed, asserting theories of economic duress, fiduciary duty breaches and other torts. The agreement related to the sale of Plaintiffs’ interests in one corporate LLC to another corporate LLC – both of which are named Defendants herein, together with an individual co-Defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This is a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. STATE v. BITELER, 2025 S.D. 73: This case involves an individual, on probation for DUI, required, as a condition of probation, to provide breathalyzer tests remotely through a remote testing device. This device takes a photo of the person submitting the sample. The deputy sheriff overseeing the 24/7 program detected photo “manipulation” in the Defendant’s submitted samples – meaning the breath test was given by another person with the wrong photo. Defendant was charged with 6 counts of false reporting under SDCL 22-11-9(3). The Magistrate Judge convicted Defendant of 1 of the 6 counts and acquitted the Defendant of the other 5 counts. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court which reversed the one conviction based upon its interpretation of “report” as found in the statute. The State appealed. The SD Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court and reinstated the Magistrate Judge’s conviction. All five Justices agree on this result. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren, with two Justices in full concurrence. Justice Salter provided a special concurring opinion, in which Retired Justice Kern concurred. NOTE: this case was orally argued just a month ago, on November 17, 2025. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Two new SD Supreme Court Decisions today

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) dismissal for failure to prosecute reversed; 2) visitation rights ruling affirmed; Summaries follows: ARROWSMITH v. ODLE, 2025 S.D. 70: The trial court dismissed this personal injury action on the basis of failure to prosecute. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating: [¶34.] Under the circumstances, we conclude the circuit court abused its discretion in granting [Defendant's] motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under both SDCL 15-11-11 and Rule 41(b) and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Retired Justice Kern. JESSOP v. COMBS, 2025 S.D. 71: In this visitation dispute, Mother requested that Father be granted only supervised visitation. Trial court granted Father unsupervised visitation, in accordance with SD’s Parenting Guidelines. Mother appealed. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court. And, because Mother did not prevail on any issue on appeal, her request for appellate attorneys was denied. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .