The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning,
holding inter alia:
Dismissal of work comp claim on basis of failure to prosecute
reversed;
Students denied claim (on basis of lack of standing) for
lost GEAR UP funding;
Trial court’s post-verdict judgment of acquittal reversed,
using de novo standard of review;
Work Comp Insurers’ denial of death benefits rejected
Summaries follow:
LAPLANTE v. GGNSC MADISON, S.D., 2020 S.D. 13: Employee’s petition for work comp benefits
was dismissed “for lack of prosecution
pursuant to ARSD 47:03:01:09 [… if there has been no activity for at least one
year…]” The Circuit Court affirmed, but the SD Supreme
Court reversed and remanded because employee's participation in vocational
rehabilitation program constituted "activity" sufficient
to avoid dismissal for failure to prosecute.
This decision is unanimous (4-0) with opinion authored by Justice
Jensen. Justice Salter did not participate.
BLACK BEAR v. MID-CENTRAL, 2020 S.D. 14: Action by several students
against multiple defendants, seeking lost funding under the Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, a/k/a “GEAR UP.” The lower court ruled against the students and
the SD Supreme Court affirmed, but on a different basis (lack of standing) than
the lower court. The issues and
resolution thereof are succinctly stated in ¶ 1 of the Court’s opinion:
Students
sued various defendants to recover for lost funding for services denied to them
under the GEAR UP program due to mismanagement and embezzlement. The circuit
court denied summary judgment on several motions by defendants before finding
the students’ claims preempted by federal law and dismissing the case. The
students appeal and the defendants raise multiple issues by notice of review.
We affirm the circuit court’s decision dismissing the students’ case, but do so
because the students lack standing to bring their claims.
The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored
by Chief Justice Gilbertson.
STATE v. WOLF, 2020 S.D. 15:
As a result of an altercation initiated by inmate against correctional
officer, State pursued 3 charges/counts against inmate. Jury found inmate guilty on 2 counts, but acquitted
inmate on 1 count. Trial judge granted
inmate’s post verdict motion and entered judgment of acquittal on 1 count and
sentenced inmate on the remaining count as to which he was found guilty. In adjudicating the State’s appeal, the SD
Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s post-verdict judgment of acquittal and
remanded for sentencing in accordance with the jury’s verdict of guilty. This decision addresses a previously unresolved
issue concerning the standard of review, with the issue framed and resolved in ¶
12, as follows:
We have not
previously considered the standard of review applicable to the State’s challenge
of an order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury has
returned a guilty verdict. However, a motion for judgment of acquittal attacks
the sufficiency of the evidence, which is a question of law whether the motion
is considered before or after the jury’s verdict. “Whether the State has
provided sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction is a question of law
reviewed de novo.” State v. Hauge, 2013 S.D. 26, ¶ 12, 829 N.W.2d 145,
149 (citing State v. Jucht, 2012 S.D. 66, ¶ 18, 821 N.W.2d 629,
633).
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by
Justice Jensen.
BONEBRIGHT v. CITY OF MILLER,
2020 S.D. 16: Employee died in work-related accident. Employer (City of Miller) and Work Comp fund contested
payment of benefits to widow on the basis that employee was engaged in “willful
misconduct.” The Department of Labor
ruled for widow on the basis that the “alleged willful misconduct was not a
proximate cause of his death.” The
Circuit Court affirmed on a different basis – because the employee “had not
engaged in willful misconduct.” The SD
Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court, stating in ¶ 24:
The circuit
court did not err when it reversed the Department’s determination on bona fide
enforcement and proximate cause. Stephanie’s workers’ compensation claim is not
precluded by willful misconduct because the City did not demonstrate bona fide
enforcement of its safety rules. Given this disposition, it is unnecessary to
address the question of proximate cause.
The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored
by Justice Salter. Retired Justice Konenkamp
sat on this case in lieu of Justice De Vaney who served as the trial judge in
this case.
These decisions may be accessed at
