The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
1) Child support award reviewed;
2) Split decision (3-2) on damages in case involving Ponderosa
Pine trees;
3) Child porn convictions upheld in 3-1-1 decision.
Summaries follows:
BURKARD v. BURKARD, 2024 S.D. 38: This case involves the child
support determination for children in a joint custody situation. The Referee
devised a plan to provide an equitable award.
And, the Referee testified in Circuit Court as to his methodology. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded,
holding:
(1) it was error, but harmless error, for the trial court to
consider the Referee’s testimony;
(2) the trial court’s adoption of the methodology was acceptable,
with the Court stating,
[¶30.] [O]ur
role on appeal is not to create a specific child support formula to fill the
statutory gap discussed above. That is for the Legislature. Here, the child
support statutes do not address the factual scenario presented and the circuit
court had discretion to equitably determine an amount of child support that
reflects, as closely as possible, the overarching Legislative intent behind our
statutory scheme.
(3) Remand is necessary “due the
discrepancies in the parties’ stated income and health insurance amounts.”
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with the Court’s opinion
authored by Justice Kern.
ESTATE OF OLSEN v. AGTEGRA CO., ET AL, 2024 S.D. 39: This is
an action for damages to Ponderosa Pine Trees allegedly caused by herbicide intended
for a neighboring field. The trial court
granted summary judgment for the Defendants.
The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding:
[¶32.]
Accordingly, the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the
Olsens’ trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance claims. However,
because the Olsens have failed to present evidence as to causation for the
claimed damages, any compensatory damages under these theories may be limited
to nominal damages. See Hoffman v. Bob Law, Inc., 2016 S.D. 94, ¶ 20, 888
N.W.2d 569, 577 (holding in a claim for trespass arising from an adjoining
landowner’s encroachment that an award of nominal damages was not erroneous
when a party failed to introduce credible evidence of damages).
[¶33.] We
affirm the circuit court’s grant of the motion for summary judgment on the
question of damages to the Olsens’ trees. We also affirm the circuit court’s
grant of the motion for summary judgment on the claims of promissory estoppel
and civil conspiracy. We reverse the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment
on the claims of trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance and
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Court’s 3-Justice majority opinion is authored by Chief
Justice Jensen.
Justice Kern provided a dissenting opinion which states, “I concur only in the majority opinion’s
determination that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the
Olsens’ claims for trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance. The
majority opinion thereafter wrongly asserts that any compensatory damages for
these claims are limited to an award of nominal damages.” Justice DeVaney concurs with Justice Kern’s
dissenting view.
STATE v. O'NEAL, 2024 S.D. 40: Defendant was convicted, by
jury, of 15 counts of possession of child porn.
The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting each of the following
assertions of error made by Defendant on appeal:
1. Whether
the circuit court erred by denying O’Neal’s motions to suppress.
2. Whether
the circuit court erred when it denied O’Neal’s motion to dismiss.
3. Whether
the circuit court abused its discretion when it admitted images corresponding
to hash values that had not been previously identified by the State.
4. Whether
the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.
5. Whether
the indictment was duplicitous and violated O’Neal’s right to jury unanimity.
The Court’s decision is 3-1-1 with the majority opinion authored
by Justice DeVaney. Justice Salter and
Justice Myren filed separate concurring opinions.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
