The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Barratry claim against County of Yankton permitted to
stand
- Rapid City Journal prevails in “right to records” claim
by 3-2 vote;
Summaries
follows:
YANKTON
COUNTY v. MCALLISTER, 2022 S.D. 37:
Yankton County, as Plaintiff, sought to enjoin three Defendants from
operating as an internet provider in violation of County Zoning Ordinance. Defendants filed counterclaims, including the
abuse of process and assertion of barratry. Defendants also filed
a third party complaint against the Yankton County State’s attorney personally,
as well as the County Zoning Administrator.
The trial court granted a summary judgment of dismissal as to Defendants
claims and counterclaims because, “they had failed to provide
timely notice to the county auditor of their injuries as required by SDCL
3-21-2 and SDCL 3-21-3… [and because the State’s Attorney] was entitled to
prosecutorial immunity.” The SD Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal of all claims except for the barratry claims
filed by 2 of the 3 Defendants against the County of Yankton on the basis of
failure to give notice, holding “Because [Defendants’] barratry
counterclaim arises from the complaint filed by Yankton County for the alleged
Ordinance violation, any risk of surprise to Yankton County was minimal.” This opinion reviews the separate causes of action
of barratry and abuse of process which the Court states are “similar
… However, [they] are distinct and have different elements.” This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. NOTE: Because it is able to uphold
the dismissal of the claims against the State’s Attorney on a different basis,
the Court, “decline[s] to address whether [the State’s Attorney] was entitled
to prosecutorial immunity.”
RAPID
CITY JOURNAL v. CALLAHAN, 2022 S.D. 38:
This is an original proceeding which addresses the right of new media
Rapid City Journal to gain access to court records. The dispute, as presented and honed for
resolution, is set forth in the opening two paragraphs of the Court’s opinion
as follows:
[¶1.] This matter concerns the
Rapid City Journal’s (Journal) applications for alternative writs of
prohibition and mandamus and corresponding applications for permission to
commence original prohibition and mandamus proceedings against the Honorable
Chad Callahan, magistrate judge. The Journal alleges that its right to access
Gary Cammack’s criminal court file was violated when Judge Callahan entered an
order sealing Cammack’s court file prior to the expiration of the condition
that he obey all laws for six months. The Journal further asserts that Judge
Callahan could not enter an order that had the effect of suspending imposition
of sentence without a probation condition. After reviewing the Journal’s
applications, we directed the Journal to address on what basis it has standing
to apply for its requested relief and directed Judge Callahan to detail the
procedural history of the matter and identify the authority upon which the
court sealed Cammack’s court file.
[¶2.] Having now reviewed the
parties’ submissions, we conclude that while the Journal does not have standing
to challenge the sentence imposed by the magistrate court, it does have standing
to challenge the magistrate court’s seal order. We therefore examine the merits
of the Journal’s claim that the magistrate court violated its right to access
Cammack’s court file.
The
Court ruled in favor of the Rapid City Journal, holding:
[¶34.] [W]e grant the Journal’s
application for a writ of mandamus and direct Judge Callahan to provide the
Journal access to any documents filed up to and including the court’s amended
order suspending imposition of sentence entered on December 15, 2021. This would
include Judge Callahan’s initial order suspending imposition of sentence
entered on October 4 that retained the obey all laws condition and the court’s
December 15, 2021 amended order removing this condition. A writ of mandamus
will issue following the expiration of the time for petitioning for rehearing
pursuant to SDCL 15-25-3 or following the resolution of any such petition.
That
portion of the Court’s ruling which favors the Rapid City Journal is a 3-2
ruling, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. As to aspect of the ruling, Chief Justice
Gilbertson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Myren joins.
These decisions may be accessed at
