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 6th 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 .
