Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding, inter alia:

 

1)    Limited Personal Injury Award upheld by 3 Justice Majority

 

 

Summary follows:

 

BRAUN v. WOLLMAN, 2024 S.D. 83: This is an action for personal injuries sustained when Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff.  Plaintiff sought substantial damages for “personal injuries, pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.”  The jury awarded $125,000, an amount much lower than requested.  The trial court, relying on the business records exception to the hearsay rule, permitted Defendant to introduce extensive medical records of the Plaintiff in cross examination of Plaintiff.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a 3-1-1 ruling.  All five Justices agreed that the trial court erred in the admission of the “contested medical records in their entirety.” (quoted language from Justice Kern’s opinion, ¶50).  The majority opinion, authored by Justice DeVaney, holds that the error was not prejudicial.  Justice Kern and Justice Myren filed separate opinions, each expressing the view that prejudicial error occurred and stating that they would reverse and remand for new trial.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

Three Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed three decisions this morning:

1)    Appeal dismissed for failure to serve Notice of Appeal;

 

2)   Request for Change of Judge improperly denied;

 

3)   5 year prison sentence upheld

 

Summaries follows:

 

DITTUS v. BLACK HILLS CARE & REHAB AND AVANTARA, 2024 S.D. 80: Appellant’s effort to appeal results in a dismissal because of failure to properly serve a Notice of Appeal.  The result in the trial court is described in the opening paragraph as follows: 

[¶1.] In a lawsuit claiming a wrongful termination, Krista Dittus appeals from an order striking her response to a motion for summary judgment, and from  an order granting summary judgment in favor of RC North SD Skilled Nursing  Facility, LLC d/b/a Avantara North (Avantara).

The problem with Appellant’s effort to appeal is described as follows:

 

[¶5.] Thereafter, Avantara filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on Dittus’s failure to serve the notice of appeal as required by SDCL 15-26A-4. In support of the motion, Avantara included in its attached documents an email from a Unified Judicial System (UJS) employee who confirmed the notice of appeal had only been “EFiled” but not served through the Odyssey system.

The SD Supreme Court agreed with Appellee’s argument and dismissed the appeal, holding:

[¶11.] Dittus does not dispute that the notice of appeal was not served on Avantara’s counsel. In both her response to the motion to dismiss the appeal and her initial appellate brief, Dittus states, without further explanation, that the omission “was an inadvertent error.” Moreover, the fact the notice of appeal was only electronically filed, but not served, was readily apparent in the Odyssey confirmation email sent to Dittus’s counsel on October 13. Under SDCL 16-21A-7(2), “[e]lectronic service is not effective if the party making service learns that the attempted service did not reach the person to be served.” Because service of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. 

This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney.

 

ESTATE OF PAUL O’FARRELL v. GRAND VALLEY HUTTERIAN BRETHREN, 2024 S.D. 81: Judge Spears, having denied a request for change of judge, ruled for Defendants and awarded attorney fees.  This decision vacates all orders entered by Circuit Judge Spears and reverses the Circuit’s Presiding Judge’s Decision to Deny the Affidavit for the purpose of disqualifying Judge Spears.  The case is “remand[ed] for the appointment of a replacement judge.” This ruling is a 3-1-1 decision. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter dissents. Chief Justice Jensen concurs in part and dissents in part.

 

STATE v. BELT, 2024 S.D. 82: The lower court’s 5 year prison sentence is affirmed in this decision.  The situation is adequately described in the opening paragraph as follows:

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, William Belt was convicted of sexual contact with a person incapable of consenting. In this appeal, he challenges the circuit court’s decision to allow expert testimony concerning the presence of inconclusive male DNA found in samples taken from the victim. He also challenges the court’s jury instruction that referenced the “interests of society” and the court’s decision to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

 

 

 

Seven New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down seven decisions this morning.  Five of these involve criminal proceedings and the Court rules in favor of the State (Attorney General) in each one and in unanimous rulings.  Each of the seven decisions is unanimous with the Court holding, inter alia:

1)    3 consecutive sentences of 30 years each upheld;

 

2)   Consent to breath test not the same as consent to blood draw;

 

3)   Employment law dispute reversed and remanded;

 

4)   Issues in Declaratory Judgment action warrant determination by jury trial

 

5)   75 year sentence on 1^st degree manslaughter upheld for 19 year old;

 

6)   Rape victim’s mental health records protected from disclosure;

 

7)   Father (joint legal custodian) ordered to cooperate in passport application process to facility Mother’s effort to vacation in Mexico with children

 

Summaries follows:

STATE v. RUDLOFF, 2024 S.D. 73: Defendant was found guilty, by jury, of THREE counts of 1^st degree Rape of Minor under 13. The trial court sentenced him to 30 years on each count, to run consecutively.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

BLAZER v. DEP’T OF PUBLIC SAFETY, 2024 S.D. 74: Driver submitted voluntarily to breath test after accident, but refused to submit to a blood draw.  Dept. of Public Safety served notice of intent to permanently disqualify driver’s CDL license (“for life”).  Administrative appeal affirmed the Dept. of Public Safety, but trial court reversed, ruling in favor of Driver, holding that Driver’s “voluntary submission to the breath test constituted a submission to a chemical analysis such that his refusal to submit to the blood draw could not result in the disqualification of his CDL.” The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding in favor of Dept. of Public Safety.  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

MATTA v. DAKOTA PROVISIONS, 2024 S.D. 75: Employment law dispute which is adequately described in the 1^st and last paragraphs of the Court’s opinion, as follows:

[¶1.] Angel Matta was hired as a production worker by Dakota Provisions in February 2020. Throughout his short tenure, Dakota Provisions documented concerns with Matta’s work attendance. Matta was injured at work on March 23, 2020, which caused him to miss several weeks of work. Matta filed a workers’ compensation claim due to his injuries and Dakota Provisions terminated Matta one month later. Matta filed suit alleging wrongful termination and that his termination violated public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment on Matta’s claims which the circuit court granted. Matta appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

* * * *

[¶36.] We affirm the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment as to Matta’s claim that he was terminated in violation of the alleged contract created by the Policy as well as Matta’s claim that his termination violated public policy as stated in SDCL 20-13-10. We reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to Matta’s claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of SDCL 62-1-16 and remand for further proceedings.

This ruling is unanimous, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

CAL SD, LLC v. INTERWEST LEASING, LLC, 2024 S.D. 76: Declaratory Judgment action relating to breach of a contract for sale of real estate.  Trial judge determined that the issue was a matter of law and submitted the dispute to a jury which ruled for plaintiff.  Defendant appeals, arguing that the issue was a matter of equity and should not have been submitted to a “binding jury determination.”  Defendant also asserts error in the jury instructions.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.

STATE v. BEAR ROBE, 2024 S.D. 77: Defendant (19 years old at time of incident) pled guilty to 1^st degree manslaughter; as part of the plea agreement the State recommended 75 year sentence with 10 years suspended.  PSI was favorable to Defendant. Several “family, friends and community members” supporting letters for Defendant, including, “Three workers from the Rapid City Club for Boys [who] characterized [Defendant] as a young man of unusually good character, a fine man, and one of the last people they thought would be in this trouble.”  The trial court sentenced Defendant to 75 years, with 0 years suspended.  The SD Supreme Court Affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

STATE v. ANTUNA, 2024 S.D. 78: Defendant in 3^rd degree in prosecution sought mental health records of victim.  Trial court, “ordered the State to speak with [Victim] to investigate whether any mental health records existed, obtain any records by subpoena, and provide them to the court for an in-camera inspection.''  State appeals.  The SD Supreme Court reversed, directing the trial court to grant the State’s Motion to Quash.  This opinion discusses and applies SD's Marsy's Law, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974).  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

WASILK v. WASILK, 2024 S.D. 79: Mother and Father (ex-spouses) share joint legal custody of 3 children. Mother “sought to take the children on vacation to Mexico and requested [Father’s] consent on the applications for their passports.”  Father denied consent.  Mother went to court, successfully seeking and receiving “an order directing [Father’s] participation in the passport application process.”  Father appeals.  The SD Supreme Court upholds the trial court’s ruling in favor of Mother.  This decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

                    

These decisions may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .