Four Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 NOTE:  These 4 decisions are being handed down 3 months or less after the submission of the cases for decision by the Court. One decision is only 22 days after submission. 

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down four decisions this morning:

 

1. Legal malpractice claim fails on basis of “lack of causation”

 

2. Insurer’s pollution exclusion upheld:

 

3. 1^st degree manslaughter verdict/sentence upheld

 

4. Res judicata defeats habeas corpus claims.

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

BARR v. COLE, 2023 S.D. 60: This is an action against 3 attorneys for legal malpractice in connection with a personal injury claim against the State of SD (PEPL fund) in connection with a motor vehicle accident involving a state employee.  The “malpractice” premise was the failure to give timely notice to the State.  The trial court granted summary judgment for the Defendants on the basis that claim against the State would fail because the employee “was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, quoting SD case law, “the plaintiff must essentially prove a ‘case within a case’ by showing ‘that the underlying claim was valid [and] would have resulted in a  favorable judgment had it not been for the attorney’s error[.]” This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

 

STATE FARM v. GRUNEWALDT, 2023 S.D. 61: Auto liability insurer filed suit for a Declaratory Judgment of no coverage, no duty to defend in connection with a claim “alleging the [insureds] delivered wheat contaminated with fertilizer to [tort plaintiff’s] elevator and are therefore liable to [tort plaintiff] for associated damages.”  The trial court granted insurer summary judgment based upon the policy’s “pollution exclusion.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

STATE v. PELTIER, 2023 S.D. 62: Defendant was convicted by jury of 1^st degree manslaughter and received a sentence of 40 years, with 20 years suspended.  Assertions on appeal include insufficiency of evidence and an alleged Brady violation in connection with an audio-recorded interview of a witness 1 week prior to trial -- with Defendant claiming a failure to provide the actual audio recording, although a written summary had been provided.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.  In regard to the alleged Brady violation, the Court stated that the audio recording had been placed in the State’s Attorney’s  “discovery outbox” and available to Defense Counsel one day after the recording was made.

 

CEPLECHA v. SULLIVAN, 2023 S.D. 63: Inmate serving a life sentence brought habeas corpus action asserting actual innocence and that “his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not assuring [that Defendant] understood his right to assert a self-defense claim.”  The trial court dismissed the habeas action on the basis that the inmate’s “claims [were considered] on direct appeal, which precluded their relitigation under the doctrine of res judicata.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in a unanimous ruling (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

SD Supreme Court reinstates jury verdict of undue influence

 

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

 

1)    Jury verdict of undue influence reinstated

 

ESTATE OF TANK, 2023 S.D. 59:  This proceeding involves a challenge to a will which named Decedent’s Neighbor as sole heir and personal representative of a “sizeable estate.”  Decedent’s “four children challenged the validity of the will based on a lack of testamentary capacity, insane delusions, and undue influence.”  The trial court had previously granted summary judgment for Neighbor, but this was reversed by the SD Supreme Court in In re Estate of Tank, 2020 S.D. 2, 938 N.W.2d 449.  On remand, a jury rendered its verdict against the Neighbor on the ground of undue influence. The trial court granted Neighbor’s “motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial.”  In this appeal, the SD Supreme Court reversed, reinstated the Jury Verdict and remanded for further proceedings.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Kern.  Circuit Judge Knoff sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Myren.  NOTE: this decision is lengthy, 31 pages, and addresses many issues. 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Landowner must endure dimunition in "right to access"

 

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

 

1. Landowner Must Endure diminution in “right to access”

 

S.D. DEP’T OF TRANSPORTATION v. LEGACY LAND CO., 2023 S.D. 58:  South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT) constructed a median on a roadway adjoining Plaintiff’s property in Rapid City.  The result of the construction impacted access to the property as follows, “Vehicles could no longer make a left turn directly into the [Plaintiff’s] property, and those leaving the [Plaintiff’s] property could only turn right onto the highway.” (from ¶1).  Plaintiff filed suit, asserting that there had been a “taking” and requested just compensation.  DOT argued that because Plaintiff still had “access” to the property, the “right to access” had not been “substantially impaired.” (the “substantially impaired” requirement has been established by existing case law in SD).  The trial court granted summary judgment to the DOT.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, in a 4-1 ruling.  The majority opinion is authored by Justice Salter.  Justice Kern dissented, stating:

 

[¶57.] Other nearby properties are located next to median breaks that allow traffic to enter and exit in both directions. [Plaintiff] is uniquely affected because of its intended commercial use of the property. Although drivers of eastbound small cars may be able to reach the property through a U-turn, the record, viewed most favorably to [Plaintiff], demonstrates that regular access by large vehicles is likely not possible. [Plaintiff] thus experiences a unique injury to its property.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

Two new decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1. Statute of limitations longer for independent contractor than for employee;

 

2. Open meetings litigation in regard to School District;

 

 

Summaries follows:

 

PAUL v. BATHURST, 2023 S.D. 56: Plaintiff filed suit for work done for Defendants in connection with a Custer County ranch.  Plaintiff’s suit alleged “breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.”  The trial court dismissed the action, applying the 4 year statute of limitations found in SDCL 15-2-15(4) which relates to wages paid to an employee.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trail court should more fully explore “the contractual relationship between the parties,” recognizing that if the Plaintiff was an “independent contractor,” then the 6 year statute of limitations found in SDCL 15-2-13(1) is applicable.  The Court also recognized that even for an employee, Plaintiff’s claims for reimbursement for expenses would be viable under the 6 year statute.

 

SD CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY, INC. ET AL. v. RAPID CITY AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 51-4, 2023 S.D. 57: This is an action asserting that the Rapid City Area School District was acting in violation of the South Dakota’s open meetings law.  One issue involves the phrase “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1.  The Court noted that this language was amended by the 2023 legislature in a manner that directly affects the issue raised.  Nonetheless, the Court restrained itself from addressing an issue that is now “moot,” simultaneously vacating the trial court’s ruling on this issue.  There is another issue involving the reviewability of a determination made by the State’s Attorney as to lack of merit for an open meetings complaint.  Both the trial court and the SD Supreme Court held that such a determination is not reviewable.  For those seeking more information on this decision, I am reproducing the 1^st and last paragraphs of the opinion here:

 

[¶1.] An organized citizens group, along with several individuals, commenced an action against Rapid City Area School District 51-4 (RCAS) seeking a declaration that RCAS was acting contrary to South Dakota’s open meeting law by not allowing public comment at some of its board meetings. After a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the circuit court ruled in favor of RCAS and denied the group’s summary judgment motion. The court also determined that it could not review a determination made by a state’s attorney concerning an alleged violation of a separate open meeting statute. We vacate the portion of the court’s decision concerning public comment and affirm the court’s decision to not review the state’s attorney’s determination.

 

[¶45.] We hold that the issue regarding the interpretation of “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1 is moot and, therefore, nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s decision interpreting the statute. We also determine that SDCL chapter 1-25 does not confer jurisdiction upon circuit courts to review the actions of a state’s attorney taken under SDCL 1-25-6. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to not review the State’s Attorney’s determination.

 

The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Retired Justice Wilbur sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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