The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:
1) Goff divorce decision, remix;
2) Employee prevails in Work Comp appeal;
3) Search of passenger’s purse scrutinized.
Summaries follows:
GOFF v. GOFF, 2024 S.D. 60: This appears to be a “new” decision which is perhaps intended to replace the decision handed down by the Court a month ago, on September 11. The previous decision was rendered on the basis that Appellant’s brief had not been timely filed, with the Court stating:
[¶11.] We note at the outset that this Court’s order could have potentially caused confusion, as it directed the Appellant to refile Fawna’s responsive brief on or before April 8, 2024. Regardless, “failure of the appellee to file a brief does not automatically translate to victory for the appellant. Appellant still has the burden of showing that the findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the conclusions of law are incorrect.” Wichman v. Shabino, 2014 S.D. 45, ¶ 5 n.3, 851 N.W.2d 202, 203 n.3 (quoting Hawkins v. Peterson, 474 N.W.2d 90, 92 (S.D. 1991)). We must therefore still analyze the assignments of error urged by Terry.
Today’s decision has substituted ¶11 so as to read as follows:
[¶11.] Because this Court’s order could have potentially caused confusion, as it directed the Appellant to refile Fawna’s responsive brief on or before April 8, 2024, we permitted Fawna to file a responsive brief on or before June 17, 2024. The brief was timely received and considered by the Court.
Otherwise the result on appeal appears to be the same result as that set forth in the earlier decision. NOTE: Nothing in today’s opinion states that the prior ruling has been withdrawn.
My previous Summary of the former decision, which appears to remain intact, is set forth here:
GOFF v. GOFF, 2024 S.D. 57: A default hearing on a Divorce petition evolved into a trial on the merits when Defendant (H) appeared telephonically and indicated that he wished to proceed. Both parties were placed under oath and testified. The trial court granted W a divorce on the ground of adultery and made determinations of child custody, child support, division of property and also made a partial award of attorney fees in favor of W. The SD Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err by proceeding to a trial on the merits. As to the merits, the SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded as to the following: 1) determination of child support arrearage; 2) visitation restriction on H mandating that visitation be exercised only in SD (restriction unsupported by proper findings); 3) attorney fee award to W. This is a unanimous decision (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.
ARNESON v. GR MANAGEMENT, LLC, 2024 S.D. 61: This is a work comp case which generated 3 opinions by the Justices of the SD Supreme Court. The DOL found the employee, having been injured by an electric shock, was “permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot category” in regard to two injuries: heart condition (A-fib) and numbness in his right hand. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the employer/insurer prevailed with the trial court finding the employee “was not permanently and totally disabled.” The SD Supreme Court reversed stating, “we affirm the Department’s determination that [employee] was permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot category.” The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren (with CJ Jensen wholly agreeing). Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion. Justice DeVaney filed an opinion which concurs in part and dissents in part: dissenting as to how the Majority handles the “availability of suitable employment in the community” issue, suggesting that remand on this issue would be more appropriate. Justice Kern agrees with Justice DeVaney.
STATE v. EDWARDS, 2024 S.D. 62: Driver of vehicle was lawfully pulled over and lawfully charged with possession of Meth. Female passenger was asked to exit vehicle during search and she did so with her purse – with the purse in her close possesson (on her lap in the vehicle and then over her shoulder upon exiting vehicle). After female passenger denied request by law enforcement to surrender her purse for inspection, it was forcibly taken from her. Thereafter she was “indicted for possession of a controlled substance; possession of marijuana, two ounces or less; obstructing a law enforcement officer; and possession of drug paraphernalia… [and] The State also filed a part II habitual offender information alleging that [passenger] had been convicted of a prior felony.” The issue, as presented in a Motion to Suppress, was whether the seizure of the purse was lawful. The trial court denied Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. The SD Supreme Court Affirmed the Denial in a 4-1 ruling, holding that the seizure of the purse was permitted as part of a search incident to the driver’s arrest. The Court’s opinion is authored by Chief Justice Jensen. Justice Myren dissented, expressing the view that passenger’s continuous exertion of close possession of her purse did not warrant its seizure.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
