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 .