The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) CDL license suspended more than 3 years after DUI and Suspended
Imposition of Sentence;
2) Protracted litigation over Farming Partnership’s dissolution
Summaries
follows:
JANS v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2021 S.D. 51: Driver with Commercial Driver’s License (CDL)
pled guilty to DUI and received a Suspended Imposition of Sentence in
2016. As a result of a “staff oversight,”
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) failed to act. Three years later in 2019, Driver
successfully completed probation, was formally discharged and the DUI record
was sealed. Thereafter DPS served notice
of 1 year’s disqualification of Driver’s CDL.
The Administrative Law Judge and Circuit Court upheld the 1 year disqualification
on the basis of SDCL 32-12A-32 which permits disqualification on the basis of “any
offense” which is not more than 4 years old.
The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting arguments based upon “separation
of powers” related to the Suspended Imposition of Sentence and a failure of statutory
authority as a result of Driver’s discharge from probation and sealing of the DUI
record. The Court’s decision is
unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
PAWELTZKI v. PAWELTZKI, 2021 S.D. 52: This case involves a dispute arising in
connection with the dissolution of a farming partnership for 3 brothers. As stated in ¶1 of the Court’s opinion, “The procedural history of this case is complex and lengthy,
spanning approximately eight years.” The remainder of ¶1 explains the
nature of this appeal and its resolution:
[¶1.] After
farming with his brothers for over three decades, Gerald Paweltzki brought suit
in 2012 to dissolve their farming partnership. He also sserted claims against
his brothers for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary uty. Lawrence
Paweltzki and Roger Paweltzki agreed that dissolution was arranted; however,
they denied that Gerald was entitled to any other relief and asserted multiple
counterclaims based on Gerald’s alleged misappropriation of partnership assets.
The procedural history of this case is complex and lengthy, spanning
approximately eight years. However, this appeal concerns only whether the
circuit court erred in denying Lawrence and Roger’s 2013 motion to enforce a
purported settlement agreement and to compel arbitration, and whether the
circuit court erred in dismissing Lawrence and Roger’s claim for unjust
enrichment after a January 2020 trial. We affirm.
The Court’s Decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
