The
SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
- Statute of limitations longer for independent
contractor than for employee;
- 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 1st 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
