The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Contractor loses dispute with Owners;
- Juvenile’s tip about Mother’s possible drunk driving
upheld as basis for DUI arrest, by 4-1 vote;
Summaries
follows:
SUVADA
v. MULLER, 2022 S.D. 75: This is a
dispute between a contractor and the owners of a cabin to be renovated. The issues and resolution at the trial level
are set forth in the opening paragraph of the opinion and in ¶17, as follows:
[¶1.] Ed Suvada commenced
this action to foreclose a materialmen’s lien to recover for material and labor
he expended in renovating a cabin for George (Jack) and Christine Muller.
Suvada also sought damages for breach of contract. The Mullers counterclaimed
for breach of contract and fraud. The jury found in favor of Suvada on his
materialmen’s lien, awarding him damages. The jury also found in favor of the
Mullers on both of their claims but only awarded damages on the breach of
contract claim. Suvada appeals, raising multiple issues.
[¶17.] The jury awarded
Suvada $8,049.99 for his claims. The jury also awarded the Mullers $28,505.22
for their breach of contract claim. Although the jury found Suvada committed
fraud, the jury declined to award the Mullers any damages on the fraud claim.
The circuit court denied both parties’ requests for attorney fees and costs.
The circuit court also set off the verdicts resulting in a judgment for the
Mullers for $20,455.23, prejudgment interest in the stipulated amount of $4,129.80,
and post-judgment interest.
The
SD Supreme Court affirmed the victory for the Owners in a unanimous ruling
(5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
The Court also denied the appellant/contractor’s request for appellate
attorney fees.
STATE
v. ROSA, 2022 S.D. 76: Fourteen year old juvenile (in detention) phoned law
enforcement authorities to report that she had been talking with her mother on
the phone and that her mother “sounded drunk” and that she had a history of
drinking and driving. Mother was located
and arrested for DUI and open container.
Trial court denied Mother’s Motion to Suppress and found her guilty of
DUI and Open Container, giving Mother a Suspended Imposition of Sentence. The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a split
decision (4-1). The Court’s opinion is
authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
Justice
Myren filed a dissenting opinion in which he stated, in part:
[¶33.]
I respectfully dissent. Law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity to justify the stop of Rosa.
[¶34.]
Both officers testified that they stopped Rosa solely based on A.R.’s report
that her mother sounded intoxicated over the phone and had a history of
drinking and disappearing. Neither officer testified that they saw any erratic
driving, traffic violations, or indication of intoxication. “Even a reliable
tip will justify an investigative stop only if it creates reasonable suspicion
that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’” Navarette, 572 U.S. at 401, 134
S. Ct. at 1690 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868,
1884, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)).
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
