SD Supreme Court, 2 new decisions April 30

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

1. Dispute over proposed boat storage/sales facility in Lake County;

2. Appeal dismissed in dispute over buy-sell agreements related to hog confinement facilities in McCook County

Summaries follows:

DUNHAM v. LAKE CTY. COMMISSION, 2020 S.D. 23: Neighboring lot owner contested the application for a variance as to setback and size restrictions for the construction of a proposed facility for the storage and sale of boats.  Lake County Board of Adjustment granted variance and issued a Conditional Use Permit.  Objecting neighbor sought relief in Circuit Court through petition for Writ of Certiorari.  Trial court denied relief.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating in ¶¶ 20-21:

[T]he Board failed to consider the second prong requiring the existence of special conditions to grant a variance. The Board made a terse finding that special conditions exist on the property but failed to meaningfully address the special conditions required by Section 505 for the Board to have authority to grant a variance. More specifically, the Board made no determination that because of a particular feature of the property at the time the Ordinance was enacted, or because of some “extraordinary and exceptional” situation on the property, a variance was necessary. The Board also failed to consider whether the denial of the variance to build a facility exceeding the setback requirements would create “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” or an “exceptional and undue hardship” on Hodne Homes. The Board exceeded its authority by failing “to follow the prescribed test” within the Ordinance. Hines, 2004 S.D. 13, ¶ 13, 657 N.W.2d at 234. 

For this reason, we reverse the circuit court’s denial of certiorari relief to Dunham on the Board’s decision granting a variance to Hodne Homes.

This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen.

HULS v. MEYER, 2020 S.D. 24:  This attempted appeal is dismissed because:

The [trial] court’s order granting summary judgment did not resolve all of the parties’ claims, and it was not certified as a final decision prior to the Appellants’ appeal.

The underlying dispute relates to:

[An action by] Appellants [who] are part owners of four LLCs [for] specific enforcement of unexecuted buy-sell agreements against two other members.

[Plaintiffs and Defendants joined together] to form four limited liability companies (LLCs) in 2006 and 2007. The entities include: Magnum 43, LLC; Rawhide, LLC; Remington, LLC; and Windmill Ridge, LLC. Under the parties’ business plan, the LLCs would construct and operate hog confinement facilities on property located in McCook County. Each LLC owns one facility that is leased to the Meyers who operate it. Three of the four LLCs feature an even equity distribution between the Meyers and the individual investors. 

The Court considered this case on the briefs on March 17, 2020, just over a month ago.  The Court’s ruling is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Salter.  [language quoted above is taken from ¶¶ 1-2 of opinion.]

These decisions may be accessed at

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

SD Supreme Court hands down 3 Decisions, April 9

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

1)    Sheriff-Elect’s assault conviction upheld;

2)   Passenger injured in drive-by shooting denied insurance coverage;

3)   Resolution of dispute in auction proceeds from cattle sale

Summaries follows:

STATE v. WARE, 2020 S.D. 20: Sheriff-elect of Roberts County was found guilty by jury of aggravated assault, sentenced to 7 years and placed upon probation.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed this conviction.  The concluding paragraph of the Court’s opinion, ¶ 21, states:

Here, the evidence that [Victim’s] jaw was broken and required to be wired shut for a month and a half was sufficient to support a verdict for aggravated assault under SDCL 22-18-1.1(4). Additionally, the State offered evidence that the  suddenness of the attack caused [Victim] psychological damage, along with his physical injury. Further, Dr. Phillips testified that even after fixing the jaw, [Victim]  faced the possibility of ongoing health issues related to his jaw injury. Ware attempts to minimize this evidence by arguing that there was no apprehension of danger to life, health, or limb because [Victim]  had no warning of the punch, [Victim]  himself had to request bartenders call law enforcement because no one made the call, and he did not receive medical attention until the next day. The jury considered all the evidence and performed its exclusive role when it returned the verdict of guilty for aggravated assault, and there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Therefore, the circuit court did not err when it denied  Ware’s motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson.

OLSON v. SLATTERY, 2020 S.D. 21: Passenger riding in backseat of her parents’ car was injured by a bullet fired from a gun by the driver of another vehicle.  This litigation (consolidated DJ actions) relates to whether insurance coverage exists for injured passenger under her parents’ policy and/or under the policy of the other driver. The trial court found that neither policy extends coverage, “because the injuries did not arise out of the use of a vehicle and, alternatively, were not caused by an accident.”  The SD  Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. Circuit Judge Klinger sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Jensen.

STROMBERGER FARMS, INC. v. JOHNSON, 2020 S.D. 22:  This litigation involves an action for injunctive relief and money damages in connection with the auction of cattle, with the underlying dispute lying between the original owner of the cattle and the subsequent purchase who placed the cattle up for auction.  The trial court ruled for the subsequent purchaser by granting a motion for partial summary judgment in the amount of $185,718.30.  The trial court also denied a request for change of venue filed by original owner.  The SD Supreme Court dismissed the appeal related to the denial of change of venue on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.  With respect to the award of $185,718.30, the Court affirmed all but $12,500 and remanded for a resolution of claims as to the lesser amount.  This ruling is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

These decisions may be accessed at

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

SD Supreme Court hands down 3 decisions today, April 2

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

1)    Undue influence upheld in will contest;

2)   Utilization of general verdict precludes appellate review of issues;

3)   $1.5 million verdict upheld

Summaries follows:

 MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GAASKJOLEN, 2020 S.D. 17: This dispute is between two daughters following the death of their mother.  After father’s earlier death, mother executed a new will disinheriting one daughter.  Disinherited daughter brought this will contest challenging the new will on the bases of a lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.  After a 5 day court trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the disinherited daughter on the basis of undue influence.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Jensen. 

SEDLACEK v. PRUSSMAN CONTRACTING, INC., 2020 S.D. 18: Plaintiff sued for injuries “allegedly sustained while repairing a crane owned” by Defendant. The issue, as submitted to the jury, was by a general verdict form.  Jury found for Defendant.  Plaintiff asserts on appeal that

the [trial] court abused its discretion when it admonished the jury not to consider testimony regarding OSHA standards, denied a proposed jury instruction on OSHA standards, and denied [Plaintiff’s] motion for a mistrial

The SD Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the utilization of a general verdict form prevents appellate review of the issues framed on appeal stating in ¶ 22:

Without special interrogatories detailing the basis for the jury’s determination of no liability, we are unable to discern the reason for its verdict, which could have rested on multiple permissible bases. Under the circumstances, we cannot assess prejudice even if the court abused its discretion. We must therefore affirm without reaching the merits of [Plaintiff’s] issues. 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

EXCEL UNDERGROUND, INC. v. BRANT LAKE SANITARY DISTRICT, 2020 S.D. 19: In this lawsuit involving additional parties, the underlying dispute is between Brant Lake Sanitary District and Excel Underground, Inc.  The jury awarded a verdict of $1,569,691.81 in favor of Excel and rejected a damage claim for $794,763.56 asserted by the District. The 9 day jury trial began in April 2018. This case was argued in the SD Supreme Court in February 2019.  Today the SD Supreme Court affirmed the verdict in a unanimous ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  The concluding paragraph of the Court’s opinion, ¶ 22, states:

We affirm on all grounds. We need not address the District’s claim that the circuit court erred by granting Excel’s motion for summary judgment on the District’s liquidated damages claim because the jury ruled for Excel. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the District’s motion for summary judgment against Excel and decline the District’s invitation to adopt the rule endorsed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Precision Erecting. Further, the circuit court did not err by instructing the jury regarding the District’s emergency bidding procedures. Although the circuit court erred by giving the agency instruction, the District has failed to establish reversible error on this basis. Finally, the jury verdict was not excessive, speculative, or contrary to law. Ample evidence exists within the trial record to support the jury’s award of contract damages. 

Retired Justice Konenkamp sat on this case in the vacancy created by Justice Zinter’s death.  Circuit Judge Clark also sat on this case in lieu of Justice Salter. 

These decisions may be accessed at

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