1983 claim against City of Sioux Falls, Challenge to Trust rejected

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. § 1983 claim against City of Sioux Falls analyzed;

 

2. Challenge to disbursements from Trust rejected

 

Summaries follows:

 

BOGGS v. PEARSON, 2021 S.D. 44:  This is a 1983 action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) filed in SD state court against the City of Sioux Falls and two of its police officers.  The result at the trial level is described in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against certain officers of the Sioux  Falls Police Department and the City of Sioux Falls, the circuit court concluded on a  motion for summary judgment that the officers were not entitled to qualified  immunity because material issues of fact were in dispute on the questions whether  the officers’ warrantless entry into the plaintiff’s apartment and subsequent use of  force were constitutional. The court further denied summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim against the City, determining that material issues of fact were in  dispute as to whether the plaintiff’s injury was caused by inadequate training, a  deliberate indifference, or an errant policy.

 

The SD Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding:

 

[¶44.] The circuit court erred in denying summary judgment on Nichole’s §  1983 claim that the officers’ warrantless entry into her apartment violated her  constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The circuit  court also erred in denying the City’s motion for summary judgment. However, the  court properly concluded that material issues of fact are in dispute on the question  whether the officers used excessive force such that the defendants are not entitled  to qualified immunity as a matter of law on this § 1983 claim.

 

The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s request for appellate attorney fees under the federal statute as premature.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

ESTATE OF CALVIN, 2021 S.D. 45:  Trust was established by Grandfather for his son, with grandchildren designated as remainder beneficiaries.  At the death of son, grandchildren filed claim against son’s estate for $700,000 of alleged wrongful disbursements to son from estate.  Estate of son, allied with step-mother of grandchildren, resisted claim.  Trial court denied the claim, holding the disbursements were proper.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) decision with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

ICWA proceeding upheld, DUI conviction upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Another ICWA case, affirming termination of parental rights and denial of motion to transfer to tribe;

 

2. DUI conviction upheld, blood draw found to be consensual.

 

Summaries follows:

 

INTEREST OF C.R.W., 2021 S.D. 42: Another ICWA proceeding.  The trial court terminated the rights of both biological parents for this Indian Child, denying a Motion to Transfer to the Oglala Sioux Tribe.  Mother and Intervenor Tribe, appealed.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in this unanimous (4-0) decision, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  Justice Kern did not participate.  The issues, as set forth in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion, are as follows:

 

[¶1.] D.S. (Mother) and J.R.W. (Father) are the biological parents of C.R.W., who was the subject of an abuse and neglect proceeding before the circuit court. The Oglala Sioux Tribe (the Tribe) intervened in the proceeding pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Tribe moved to disqualify C.R.W.’s attorney alleging the attorney had a conflict of interest with C.R.W. because the attorney was not advocating for C.R.W.’s expressed wishes. During the termination proceedings, Mother and Tribe moved to transfer the case to tribal court. The circuit court denied the motion to disqualify C.R.W.’s attorney and the motions to transfer jurisdiction. The court entered a final dispositional order terminating the parental rights of both parents. Mother and the Tribe appeal. We affirm.

 

STATE v. SLEPIKAS, 2021 S.D. 43:  Defendant was convicted of DUI. The sole issue on appeal relates to Defendant’s consent for a blood draw. (“[Defendant] twice answered, ‘okay’ in response to the officer’s request to draw his blood.”)  This decision affirms both the Magistrate Court and the Circuit Court, holding:

 

[¶26.] Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the magistrate court’s finding that Slepikas provided valid, voluntary consent to the blood draw was not clearly erroneous. We affirm the circuit court’s decision.

 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

two decisions by SD Supreme Court this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Extrinsic oral evidence by Attorney in Fact permitted;

 

2. Termination of parental rights to Indian Child reversed.

 

Summaries follows:

 

SMITH ANGUS RANCH v. HURST, 2021 S.D. 40:  This dispute and the result at the trial level are described in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:

 

[¶1.] Smith Angus Ranch Inc. (SAR), a South Dakota corporation, brought an action alleging Travis Hurst (Travis) wrongfully acquired SAR assets and made improper purchases using SAR funds while serving as a director and officer of SAR. The complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing, among other claims. The court granted SAR’s motion for partial summary judgment on the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing, after prohibiting Travis from presenting extrinsic oral evidence to show he was authorized to carry out the contested transactions.

 

Intermediate appeal to the SD Supreme Court was sought, as explained in ¶12:

 

[¶12.]  Travis petitioned for intermediate appeal, which this Court granted. He claims the circuit court erred by applying the rule in Stoebner to exclude extrinsic oral evidence that the transactions were authorized or approved and thereby erred in granting SAR’s motion for partial summary judgment.

 

The SD Supreme Court agreed with appellant, reversing and remanding, stating in ¶22:

 

[¶22.] Our cases, including our most recent decision in Stoebner, have only applied the rule from Bienash to acts of self-dealing by an attorney-in-fact acting under a written POA. We have not extended this rule to other fiduciaries, and SAR does not present authority from any jurisdiction that has extended the rule to other fiduciary relationships. Limiting the rule to acts of self-dealing by POAs is consistent with the recognition of this Court, and other courts, that the rule arises from the acute vulnerability of POAs to self-dealing. See Bienash, 2006 S.D. 78, ¶ 21, 721 N.W.2d at 436. See also Estate of Casey v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 948 F.2d 895, 898 (4th Cir. 1991) (stating the bright-line rule concerning POAs had been adopted “in order to avoid fraud and abuse”).

 

This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

IN RE INTEREST OF C.H., 2021 S.D. 41:  Mother’s parental rights to Indian Child were terminated by the trial court.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the evidence was insufficient to establish that “active efforts were made to reunify Mother and [child]” as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), as well as by SD law.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

Adjudication of “delinquent child” reversed

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia: 

 

1)    Adjudication of “delinquent child” reversed

 

Summary follows:

 

IN RE INTEREST OF I.T.B., 2021 S.D. 39: High school student was adjudicated to be a "delinquent child" on the basis that he made a terroristic threat under SDCL 22-8-13(1).  The facts occurred around a lunch period in January, 2020, and were dealt with by the high school principal, assistant principal and school resource officer.  The school's administrative assistant provided the following testimony in the trial court:

 

One of the things I heard as [the student] was walking in and out, one of the words was bomb. And I’m not sure what he said, I just heard the word bomb. Another of the words that he used was killing someone. And at that time, he had already come back in and grabbed the scissors that we have in the office and he said I could just kill someone. And he was laughing and he sa[id] I’m just kidding. And he set them back down and he went and sat back down. And he got up again and he was back out again. And then he came back and he was laying on the floor again. It was just continual.  

 

The SD Supreme Court conducted an extensive review of the record, concluding:

 

Because the evidence in the record is insufficient to support a determination that either of I.T.B.’s statements constitute a terroristic threat, we reverse the circuit court’s adjudication of I.T.B. as a delinquent child.

 

This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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