Three new Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

TheSD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) compensable damages, condemnationaction; 2) calculation of restitution reversed;  3) Trial court’s award of Rule11 sanctions reversed.   Summariesfollow:  DEP'TOF TRANSPORTATION v. GUSTAFSON, 2026 S.D. 8: This suit addresses the question of exactly what is compensable in acondemnation action.  The property inquestion is around one of the most well-known intersections in South Dakota –I-29 and 41st Street in Sioux Falls. After a determination and payment “compensation for the fair value of the parts of their propertytaken for a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement.” Actual construction associatedwith this project, “also provided for theclosure of the 41st Street and Carolyn Avenue intersection, which eliminatedthe shortest indirect access route to the [landowners'] property from 41stStreet.”  Landowners sought additional compensation forthis “loss of access.”  The State said no.  The trial court held that, “that the closure of this intersectionsubstantially impaired their right of access, and that they sustained an injurypeculiar to their property.”  In a split decision (3-2) among the Justices,the Supreme Court reversed.  The Court’sdecision, (which runs 38 pages and 58 ¶ s), is authored by Justice DeVaney,with Chief Justice Jensen and Justice Salter in full agreement.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion,agreed to by Justice Myren. The Dissent would, “affirm the circuitcourt’s order and remand for entry of the stipulated award of $1,329,389, plusinterests and costs, for a total of $1,510,901.”   STATEv. JANES, 2026 S.D. 9: Defendant appeals his conviction for child abuse or crueltyof a minor, his stepchild.  On appealDefendant raises 4 issues related to Evidentiary rulings, in addition to abusein sentencing and the determination of restitution.  He also raises ineffective assistance of counsel.The SD Supreme Court rejects all of Defendant’s arguments, except for thecalculation of restitution related to “the children’s counseling expenses” and remanded for re-evaluation.The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief JusticeJensen.   WELLSFARGO v. MYERS, 2026 S.D. 10:  This is adebt collection action against “Mary Myers.”  There are at least two individuals withthe name “Mary Myers.” The Sheriff served “Mary 2,” not “Mary 1” who would have beenthe correct party.  Attorney for Mary 2contacted Plaintiff’s counsel seeking a dismissal.  When the dismissal was not forthcoming, Mary2 sought rule 11 sanctions which the trial judge awarded in the amount of “$3,662.93 [for Mary 2’s] attorney fees.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed findingthat “conduct was notsanctionable under [the] Rule.”  (The opinion contains a detailed recitationof the relevant events.)  The Court’sdecision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.  Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion.   Thesedecisions may be accessed at  http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .  

8th Circuit Hands Down two D.S.D. decisions today

The Johnson appeal, the reversal, is from the Southern Division. The Cadotte appeal, a per curiam dismissal of appeal, is from the Western Division, Hon. Karen E. Schreier. U.S. v Johnson: Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence on the basis that the routine traffic stop was prolonged beyond a reasonable time, with the detaining officer waiting for a drug dog. Following the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress, Defendant pled guilty to a federal drug offense. The 8th Circuit reversed and vacated the conviction. The Court's opinion, authored by Judge Kobes states: [The] Officer prolonged the stop beyond the time needed to address Johnson’s traffic violations. Cf. Peralez, 526 F.3d at 1120 (officer’s “drug interdiction questions,” interspersed with “routine processing of a traffic stop,” unreasonably prolonged the stop). In his own words, it normally takes him five or six minutes to complete and explain a traffic ticket. So if he had diligently written the window tint warning, he would have completed it by 20 minutes and 42 seconds into the stop at the latest and Johnson would have been free to go before the K9 arrived. This is a split decision (2-1), with a dissenting opinion by Judge Stras. U.S. v Cadotte: Defendant pled guilty to child porn and was sentenced 240 months, followed by 5 years of supervised release. The plea agreement contained an "appeal waiver." Nonetheless, Defendant appealed. The 8th Circuit dismissed the appeal, upholding the appeal waiver. This is a per curiam decision and there is no discussion of an examination of the record for other grounds for relief and no indication of an Anders brief. These decisions may be accessed by clicking on the links below: Current Opinions are for Thursday, February 12, 2026 213954P.pdf 02/12/2026 United States v. Alex Johnson U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 21-3954 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern 242625U.pdf 02/12/2026 United States v. Tell Cadotte U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 24-2625 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

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 .