The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Public Duty rule prohibits suit against City of Sioux Falls;
2) Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld (Sturgis Rally
Conviction);
3) Dispute over tenancy in common/joint tenancy issue following
death of wife.
Summaries
follows:
FODNESS v.
CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, 2020 S.D. 43: Personal
injury victim sustained injuries when her apartment collapsed as a result of a
contractor’s work. This action was filed
against the City of Sioux Falls, asserting negligence in the issuance of a building
permit for the contractor. The trial
court dismissed the action on the basis of the public duty rule. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, observing that
the, “complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to establish... the
special duty exception to the public duty rule” as recognized in Tipton
v. Town of Tabor (Tipton I), 538 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 1995). This decision is unanimous, with opinion
authored by Justice Kern. Circuit Judge
Means sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.
STATE v.
WILLIAMS, 2020 S.D. 44: Defendant was
convicted of various offenses arising out of an arrest around 2:00 A.M. made
during the 2018 Sturgis Rally. Officers
detained the Defendant after observing what appeared to be a drawn weapon with a
red laser light pointed at the Oasis Bar.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence on the offenses and
placed Defendant on unsupervised probation for one year. Defendant
appeals the denial of his Motion to Suppress.
The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This
decision is unanimous with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
MOECKLY v.
HANSON, 2020 S.D. 45: This proceeding is summarized in ¶ 1 of the Court’s opinion
as follows:
Personal
representatives for the estate of Sharon Orr-Hanson brought a partition action
for property owned by Sharon and her husband, Bennet Hanson. The circuit court
held the property was owned as tenants in common and ordered partition. Hanson
appeals, arguing the property was held as joint tenants and should go to him
alone as the surviving joint tenant. We affirm.
The Court’s
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Gilbertson.
These decisions may be accessed at
