Two New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Cooperative Grazing Association Dispute;

 

2)   Assault convictions against ex-wife affirmed, but “harassing and threatening” conduct conviction reversed;

 

 

Summaries follows:

NELSON v. ESTATE OF CAMPBELL, 2023 S.D. 14: This dispute and the judicial rulings are not easily summarized.  Below is the opening paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶1.] The Estate of Gordon Campbell (Estate) sought to withdraw real property from the Redwater Grazing Association (Redwater), a cooperative grazing association, previously formed by several members, including Campbell, who had contributed property to Redwater. Another member of Redwater, John Nelson, asserted that the Estate was not authorized to remove the land from Redwater. Alternatively, he claimed that he had entered into a contract with the Estate to purchase the land from the Estate. Nelson and Redwater both filed various claims and counterclaims against the Estate and against Jared Capp, another party seeking to purchase the land from the Estate. The circuit court granted specific performance to the Estate, requiring Redwater to deliver the deed for the property to the Estate. The court also granted summary judgment against Nelson and Redwater and dismissed the remaining claims. Nelson and Redwater appeal.1 We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  If the reader seeks more details, please look at the opinion which may be accessed through the link below.

 

STATE v. PENEAUX, 2023 S.D. 15: Defendant was found guilty, by jury, of six counts in total, five of which related to Aggravated Assault against his ex-wife and the 6^th count was for “threatening and harassing conduct” related to his efforts to get his ex-wife to dismiss the charges while the charges were pending.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the assault convictions.  But, the Court reversed and vacated the conviction for “threatening and harassing conduct,” holding that while the conduct of the Defendant was “threatening and intimidating,” his activities were not “obscene or lewd, nor can they be construed to suggest a lewd or lascivious act” as required by SDCL 49-31-31(1).   The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney.  All five justices agree that the assault convictions should be affirmed.  Justice Salter filed a dissenting opinion as to the reversal of the “threatening and harassing” conviction.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Ingestion not a basis for CGL disqualification

 

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

 Ingestion guilty plea not a basis for CGL disqualification

STANLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2023 S.D. 13:  Defendant pled guilty to unauthorized ingestion of a controlled drug or substance.  Defendant’s arrest occurred while he was operating a motorcycle.  DPS notified Defendant that his CGL was disqualified for 1 year as a result of his guilty plea.  The ALJ agreed with DPS.  The Circuit Court reversed.  The SD Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court, stating:

 

[¶15.] The felony ingestion statute in SDCL 22-42-5.1 prohibits a person from “knowingly ingest[ing] a controlled drug or substance or hav[ing] a controlled drug or substance in an altered state in the body . . . .” There is no evidence or showing that Stanley utilized the motorcycle to commit the crime of ingestion of a controlled substance. The offense as committed by Stanley in this case is therefore not subject to mandatory CDL disqualification within SDCL 32-12A-36(4).

 

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

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Three decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1. Tort judgment enhanced by $700:

 

2. Work Comp appeal fails due to failure to notify DOL;

 

3. HSC permitted to administer psychotropic medication to patient involuntarily committed.

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

LAMB v. WINKLER, 2023 S.D. 10: Plaintiffs brought tort action for damages to the person of H and to their tractor as a result of decedent rear-ending H when he was driving the tractor.  (Decedent died as a result of this collision.)  Trial was to the Court, not by jury.  Trial court awarded total damages of $36,498.80.  The SD Supreme Court remanded, directing the trial court to increase the award by $700 to cover the cost of a new batter for the tractor.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

HUSSEIN v. SHOWPLACE WOOD PRODUCTS INC., 2023 S.D. 11: This is a Work Comp claim. The Administrative Law Judge granted summary judgment to employer and employer’s insurer.  The trial court dismissed the employee’s appeal because Notice of Appeal had not been served on the Dept. of Labor.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, stating:

 

[¶19.] Because Hussein did not serve his notice of appeal to the circuit court on the Department within 30 days after the ALJ served notice of its amended letter decision, the circuit court properly dismissed Hussein’s administrative appeal. Further, because the circuit court was without subject matter jurisdiction, this Court likewise lacks jurisdiction over the merits of Hussein’s appeal. See Cable v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2009 S.D. 59, ¶ 52, 769 N.W.2d 817, 833.

 

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

 

 

JOHNSON v. B.T., 2023 S.D. 12: Involuntary commitment patient at Human Services Center (HSC) appeals the trial court’s ruling permitting HSC “to administer psychotropic medication to B.T. for up to one year.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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