It
should be noted that the first decision in today’s release is controlled by the
landmark decision, Bracken v. South Dakota Department of Labor and
Regulation, Reemployment Assistance Division, 2023 S.D. 22. This is NOTEWORTHY to this reporter because
the Court’s ruling in Bracken was the result of pro bono advocacy
by attorney Eric Schulte who has recently been appointed as a new federal judge
for the District of South Dakota. Eric
Schulte’s pro bono work in South Dakota State Court lives on…
The
SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
- Order requiring repayment for pandemic benefits
reversed
- Claim contesting Will reinstated
- Consecutive Sentences for separate transactions upheld
Summaries
follows:
REIDBURN
v. DEP’T OF LABOR & REGULATION, 2024 S.D. 19: Claimant was ordered to “repay
$24,690 in pandemic unemployment benefits,” by the ALJ and lower court. His request for attorney fees was also
denied. The SD Supreme Court reversed on
the repayment issue, finding that the ALJ and lower court applied the wrong
standard (both “‘utilized the now-rejected direct/indirect standard.’” The lower court’s ruling
on attorney fees is affirmed, but this opinion declines to rule on a
seemingly-warranted request for appellate attorney fees because a motion for
appellate attorney fees had not been filed. The Court’s decision is unanimous
(5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. NOTE:
The lower court’s denial of attorney fees was justified because the
matter was considered by the lower court prior to this Court’s ruling in Bracken
v. South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Reemployment Assistance
Division, 2023 S.D. 22, ¶ 24, 991 N.W.2d 89 – a decision which rejected the
“direct/indirect standard.”
.
ESTATE
OF SCHMELING, 2024 S.D. 20: This will contest was brought by 2 brothers and a
nephew of the deceased. The trial court
granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs. The SD Supreme Court reversed and
remanded. The lower court’s ruling and
the SD Supreme Court’s decision is explained in the opening paragraph as
follows:
[¶1.] Two brothers and one
nephew of the decedent filed a petition contesting the provisions in the
decedent’s will devising farmland to the decedent’s sister-in-law. The Estate moved
for summary judgment, asserting that based on this Court’s decision in In re
Estate of Tank, 2020 S.D. 2, 938 N.W.2d 449, the contestants could not show
that the devise was the result of undue influence. The circuit court agreed,
concluding that the record contained no evidence showing that the decedent had
a testamentary disposition toward the contestants. The court also determined that
summary judgment was appropriate because the contestants did not
present evidence showing that the sister-in-law participated in the drafting of
the disputed will or engaged in acts of undue influence. The contestants
appeal, asserting the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on
grounds not briefed or argued to the court and erred in concluding that under Tank
summary judgment was appropriate. We reverse and remand.
The
Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice
DeVaney.
STATE
v. SIMONSEN, 2024 S.D. 21: Defendant “ple[d]
guilty to two counts of solicitation of a minor, one count of sexual contact
with a minor under the age of sixteen, and one count of rape in the fourth
degree.” The
trial “court signed four separate judgments of conviction and ordered
each conviction to be served consecutively.”
Because the determination of “separate transactions” was made in a separate
hearing (with only the attorneys present), the Defendant’s appeal is premised
on the argument that the trial court “improperly enhanced his
sentence after it had already commenced.” The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s appeal
and affirmed the trial court. This
decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice
Jensen.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
