SD Supreme Court Decision, Feb 27, 2020

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning:  Ranch land lease dispute reversed and remanded;

Summary follows:

KNECHT v. EVRIDGE, 2020 S.D. 9:  This litigation involves two 3 year lease agreements for 3070 acres of ranch land in Perkins County.  This land adjoins national grass land encompassed in Grand River National Grassland and the lease referenced the possibility of the lessee obtaining grazing rights in the national grassland area.  The evolution of this dispute, as described in ¶ 1 of the Court’s opinion is as follows:

Following a series of disputes between the parties, the [Lessors] refused [Lessee’s] lease payments for the second year. [Lessee]  filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud. The [Lessors]  counterclaimed seeking damages under the agreements. 

The matter, as resolved at the trial court level is described in ¶ 2 of the Court’s opinion as follows:

The parties stipulated to a preliminary court trial to determine their rights under the lease agreements and a subsequent jury trial to resolve the remaining factual issues. The court found one lease valid and binding, and the other lease valid but voidable. A jury later awarded damages to both parties.

Appeals were perfected as follows:

The [Lessors] appeal, alleging the circuit court abused its discretion in its evidentiary rulings and in its jury instructions. [Lessee] also appeals and argues the circuit court erred when it found the second lease voidable instead of void and dismissed his fraud and deceit claims. 

The SD Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and rendered the following disposition, as articulated in ¶ 61:

  

We therefore reverse this decision and remand the case for a new trial on [Lessee’s] deceit claim consistent with this opinion. We affirm all other issues.

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Retired Justice Severson sat on this case which was orally argued on March 26, 2019.

This decision may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Feb 20 SD Supreme Court Decisions

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning, holding inter alia: 

1)    Attorney suspended from practice of law for 1 year;

2) Felony of hit and run involving injury does not require proof of knowledge of injury.

Summaries follow:

DISCIPLINE OF SWIER, 2020 S.D. 7:  Attorney is suspended from practice of law for 1 year.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson.  Circuit Judges Means and Sabers sat on this case, in lieu of Justices Kern and DeVaney. 

STATE v. NEKOLITE, 2020 S.D. 8: Defendant was convicted of DUI 2^nd offense and felony hit and run involving injury.  Defendant appeals only the hit and run involving injury, arguing that the State must prove he had knowledge of an injury.  The drivers engaged in a conversation after the accident, after whichDefendant drove away from the scene.  That conversation is described in ¶ 2 as follows:

[Other driver] asked Nekolite if he was hurt, but she could not understand his response and thought he was impaired. [Other driver] told the dispatcher that she had hurt her left thumb, but she did not tell Nekolite that she was injured.

The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  The Court recognized that there is a split of authority among jurisdictions which have enacted similar statutes but ultimately holds in¶ 21:

We believe the better view is to hold that our statutes do not require knowledge of the injury as an essential element of an offense under SDCL 32-34-5.

This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Retired Justice Meierhenry sat on this case which was submitted on the briefs May 28, 2019. 

These decisions may be accessed at

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Preview Coming

SD S Ct summaries coming