Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court Today

 The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)   claim for damages for spam e-mail rejected for non-resident; 

2)  Medical Malpractice claim rejected because it was filed one day too late;

 

3) Restitution order reversed because of lack of causal connection with offense.

  

Summaries follows:

 

LAPIN v. ZEETOGROUP, 2025 S.D. 36:  Pro se plaintiff, aggravated by spam e-mails, filed this suit under SDCL 37-24-47 which provides:

No person may advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from South Dakota or sent to a South Dakota electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:

(1) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party’s domain name without the permission of the third party;

(2) The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information;

(3) The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.

 

The trial court dismissed the action because plaintiff was not a “resident” of South Dakota, as required by SDCL 37-24-41(14)(c).  (Defendant argued that Plaintiff was a “digital nomad.”) The SD Supreme Court affirmed.  This is a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion by Justice Kern.  NOTE: the trial court denied Defendant’s request for attorney fees and costs, but no appeal was taken by Defendant on this ruling.

 

 

PAULSEN v. AVERA MCKENNAN, 2025 S.D. 37: Plaintiff (who was experiencing severe bleeding) was given a hysterectomy by Defendants. Thereafter she brought this medical malpractice suit for surgery conducted without her consent. The parties agree that “that the two-year repose period began to run on December 15, 2021, and that [Plaintiff] commenced her lawsuit on December 15, 2023.”  The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, holding that her lawsuit was commenced one day too late.  Also, although the Plaintiff “requested the opportunity to complete discovery before the court ruled on the summary judgment motion,” the trial court did not do so.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

INTEREST OF J.W., 2025 S.D. 38: The trial court’s order requiring juvenile to pay restitution of $15,000 was reversed by the SD Supreme Court because there was “no causal connection between the offense for which he was adjudicated—accessory to a crime stemming from his act of lying to the police—and the victim’s damages.”  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

Three Decisions by SD Supreme Court Today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Dispute between owner of dairy farm and feed mill resolved;

 

2) Dismissal for failure to prosecute reversed;

 

3) State of SD prevails in dispute with Lincoln County citizens over proposed prison site.

 

Summaries follows:

 

BERWALD v. STAN’S, INC., 2025 S.D. 33: This is a dispute between the owner/operator of a Dairy Farm and a “local feed mill.” The dispute and proceedings in the trial court are summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s Opinon:

 

[¶1.] Calvin Berwald operated a dairy farm as Sokota Dairy, near Alpena, South Dakota. He filed this action alleging that Stan’s, Inc. (Stan’s), a local feed mill, breached an agreement for Berwald to purchase soybean meal by prematurely cancelling it. Berwald also alleged that Stan’s breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose arising from his separate purchase of calf starter, claiming that contaminated calf starter caused the death of more than 200 of his cattle. The circuit court granted Stan’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim based upon accord and satisfaction. Following trial, a jury found that Stan’s breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose but that no damages were caused by the breach. Berwald appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and in denying his motion for a new trial.

 

The SD Supreme Court Affirmed in a unanimous decision (5-0), with a 25 page opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

OLSON v. HURON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 2025 S.D. 34: The trial court dismissed this medical malpractice (and related claims) action on the basis of Plaintiff’s alleged “failure to prosecute.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating in the concluding paragraph of the opinion:

 

[¶57.] The circuit court disregarded record activity within one year of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and nothing in the record rises to the level of egregiousness of our previous cases dealing with Rule 41(b) dismissals. Rather, the delays here were neither unexplained nor unreasonable. We conclude, therefore, that the court’s dismissal under both SDCL 15-11-11 and Rule 41(b) was not within the range of permissible choices, and we reverse the court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. However, we affirm the court’s order denying Dr. Miner’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with 25 page opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

 

JENSEN, HOFFMAN, ET AL v. DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, 2025 S.D. 35: This action was filed against the State in regard to the selection of land in Lincoln County for the site of a new prison facility.  The trial court dismissed the action.  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, “on the basis that the controversy here is not justiciable because the Appellants lack the right to enforce local zoning regulations against the State in a declaratory judgment action.”  The Court did “not reach the merits of the State’s sovereign immunity and preemption claims.”  This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with 18 page opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

two new decisions by SD Supreme Court today

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:

 

1)    Reversal & Remand, Civil Dispute

 

2)   Criminal Conviction Affirmed;

  

Summaries follows:

JED SPECTRUM, INC. v. STOAKES, 2025 S.D. 31: The first and last paragaphs of this opinion explain what is happening:

[¶1.] Bighorn Construction, LLC (Bighorn) and JED Spectrum, Inc. (JED) each filed a echanic’s lien against property owned by Keith Stoakes and thereafter jointly instituted this action to foreclose on the liens. Stoakes answered, denying the validity of the liens and asserting counterclaims for slander of title against both companies and breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud against JED. After a three-day bench trial, the circuit court issued amended findings of fact and conclusions of law denying JED’s and Bighorn’s claims for lien foreclosure and ruling in favor of Stoakes on his slander of title claims against both companies. The court awarded Stoakes $252,225.27 in damages on his slander of title claims and $33,394.20 in attorney fees. The court denied relief on the parties’ remaining claims. Bighorn and JED appeal, arguing the court erred in ruling in favor of Stoakes on his slander of title claim and in calculating damages. By notice of review, Stoakes challenges the denial of relief on his promissory estoppel claim and associated request for attorney fees. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

[¶51.] We reverse the circuit court’s order and judgment in favor of Stoakes on the slander of title claims and affirm the court’s order denying Stoakes’s promissory estoppel claim. We also affirm the court’s judgment for attorney fees in favor of Stoakes in the amount of $33,394.20.10F 11 Given these rulings, we also deny Stoakes’s request for appellate attorney fees.

Unanimous (5-0) decision, with opinion by Justice DeVaney.

STATE v. GEIST, 2025 S.D. 32:  This opinion is summarized in the opening paragraph:

[¶1.] Following a jury trial, Michael David Geist was convicted and sentenced for simple assault on a law enforcement officer and criminal trespass. Geist appeals, alleging the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence a recording from an officer’s body camera under the silent witness theory. We affirm.

Unanimous (5-0) decision, opinion authored by Justice Salter.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

25 year sentence upheld

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 decision this morning:

 

1)   25 year sentence for inmate’s possession of altered razor blade upheld;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. HILLYER, 2025 S.D. 30: Pennington County jail inmate “was convicted of possession of a weapon - an altered razor blade,” and sentenced to 25 years as “a habitual offender.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Defendant’s arguments that, “that the circuit court erred by rejecting his lesser-included offense jury instruction, [by] denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence, [by] refusing to give an instruction telling the jury not to consider hypothetical uses of the razor blade, [and] that the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him of a fair trial.”  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Trial Court erred in applying Evidentiary Principle of Res Gestae

 

1) Trial court erred in relying on evidentiary principle of res gestae;

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.” At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an aggravated assault charge.”  The trial court ruled that such evidence was “admissible as res gestae evidence.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on the misdemeanor conviction, stating:

 

From our review of the record, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant] was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is warranted.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

 

 

Summary follows:

 

STATE v. ROUSE, 2025 S.D. 29: Based upon an incident which occurred during inmate’s incarceration “in the maximum security cellblock of the Hughes County Jail,” he was charged and convicted of “three counts of aggravated assault (physical menace) against a law enforcement officer and one count of threatening a law enforcement officer.” At trial, the trial judge permitted the State to introduce evidence of the underlying reason why Defendant was incarcerated – because he was “awaiting trial on an aggravated assault charge.”  The trial court ruled that such evidence was “admissible as res gestae evidence.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the three felony counts, but not on the misdemeanor conviction, stating:

 

From our review of the record, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different outcome if the testimony about [Defendant] being in jail for an aggravated assault involving an alleged stabbing had not been admitted. See Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26, 1 N.W.3d at 686. We therefore conclude [Defendant] was prejudiced by the erroneous admission of this testimony such that a reversal and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault counts is warranted.

 

The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. 

 

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1) Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees (times 2) in Mechanic’s Lien foreclosure;

2)   Search incident to Mental Health hold upheld; 

3) Pro Se Defendant suffers adverse result in lower court and on appeal.

  

Summaries follows:

 

SMITH MASONRY v. WIPI GROUP INC., 2025 S.D. 26: In this action, Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on a Mechanic’s Lien.  The trial court denied relief initially but was reversed on appeal in WIPI I, 2023 S.D. 48, 996 N.W.2d 368.  On remand, the trial court awarded the full amount of the lien as ordered by the SD Supreme Court.  But, the trial court also denied attorney fees to Plaintiff.  This appeal looks at whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees.  The SD Supreme Court again reverses the trial court and orders a remand for an award of Attorney Fees.  The Court also awards Plaintiff appellate attorney fees of $30,000.  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice DeVaney.  Justice Kern filed a concurring opinion expressing her belief that the trial court should award no less than $150,000 in attorney fees on remand (in addition to the appellate award of $30,000).

STATE v. PARRIS, 2025 S.D. 27: Police found Meth in a small container in Defendant’s pocket when Defendant was taken “into protective custody on a mental health hold after determining, based on his suicidal statements  and other actions, that emergency intervention was necessary.” After being convicted of possession of a controlled substance, Defendant appeals asserting that his Motion to Suppress Evidence should have been granted.  The SD Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the conviction.  The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

STATE v. SHEPLEY, 2025 S.D. 28: After receiving an undesired result in proceeding pro se in this criminal proceeding, Defendant appeals asserting that the “circuit court failed to adequately advise him of the risks of self-representation.”  The SD Supreme Court rejects the appeal and affirms.  This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Kern.

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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

 

 

Work Comp, Land trust dispute, SD Guard Members prevail

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Injured employee secures Work Comp benefits by 3/2 ruling;

 

2)   Land trust dispute resolved;

 

3) SD Guard Members prevail in pay dispute with Adjutant General.

  

Summaries follows:

 

BREWER v. TECTUM HOLDINGS, INC., 2025 S.D. 23: Employee sought Work Comp benefits for back-related injury.  The ALJ and the trial court denied all benefits, including a claim for Permanent Total Disability (PTD).  The SD Supreme Court affirmed the denial of PTD benefits, but -- in a split decision (3/2) – reversed and remanded for other benefits holding that, “Because [Employee] established that his work injury was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment.”  The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Kern.  Justice Myren’s dissenting opinion, in which Justice DeVaney concurs, would affirm the denial of all benefits. 

 

STURZENBECHER v. SIOUX COUNTY RANCH, LLC, 2025 S.D. 24: This litigation involves 1,041 acres of farm land in Turner County.  The dispute, somewhat complex in nature, and the holding of the lower court are described in the opening 2 paragraphs of the opinion which are set forth below:

[¶1.] In 2020, Cody Sturzenbecher and his mother, Judy Sturzenbecher, and Sioux County Ranch, LLC (Sioux County) entered into several related transactions all connected to the purchase of  he Sturzenbechers’ family farm from a trust in which Judy held a beneficial interest. Under the arrangement, Judy purchased the farm from the trust using the proceeds of a loan from Sioux  ounty. She then conveyed the property to Sioux County under the terms of a purchase agreement, and Sioux County leased the farm to Cody. The lease required Cody to make annual payments and  ontained an option to purchase the property at a predetermined price. Cody defaulted under the terms of the lease, and Sioux County terminated the lease agreement and listed the property  for sale.

 

[¶2.] The Sturzenbechers sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Judy’s conveyance of the farm to Sioux County created an equitable mortgage and was not an absolute sale. The  circuit court granted Sturzenbechers’ request fora preliminary injunction, and also denied Sioux County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Sioux County has appealed both decisions. We  affirm.

 

The SD Supreme Court affirms in a unanimous (5/0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Salter. 

CHRISTIANSEN, ET AL v. MAJOR GENERAL MORRELL, 2025 S.D. 25: Seven members of the SD’s Air National Guard sued the South Dakota Adjutant General on the basis of wrongful denial of benefits (15 days of paid military leave) while serving on Active Duty, having been called into duty, “as active guard and reserve (AGR) orders issued pursuant to ‘32 USC 328’ and ‘502(F)[.]’” Relief was sought under the, “Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–35.” The trial court denied relief, imposing a burden on the plaintiffs of the necessity of, “demonstrate[ing] the existence of an antimilitary animus.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:

[¶43.] Whatever the reason, the Adjutant General has not offered a sufficient legal basis for its all-encompassing AGR orders theory. And we conclude that the plaintiffs could, at any given  ime, be on active duty under either Title 32 or Title 10, but not both. As a result, when the plaintiffs received Title 10 orders, their Title 32 AGR status ended, temporarily, and their  uties changed from organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components to supporting active-duty operations, missions, or exercises. Once plaintiffs  onverted to Title 10 duty, the exception of 32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(2) does not apply, and the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a)(1) allowing 15 days of military leave control.

 

[¶44.] We conclude that the plaintiffs are entitled to the accrual of military leave while in Title 10 status and, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

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 .

 

 

Special road assessment by City Upheld

 1)    Special Assessment against landowner upheld;

 

 

Summary follows:

 

KJD, LLC v. CITY OF TEA, 2025 S.D. 22: “The City of Tea impos[ed] a special assessment against property abutting a road construction project, after finding that the City’s improvement conferred special benefits on the property above and beyond that experienced by the public at large.”  Appeal to Circuit Court resulted in an affirmance.  This appeal to the SD Supreme Court also resulted in an affirmance.  This is a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.

This decision may be accessed at

 

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

 

SD Supreme Court Hands Down 3 Decisions Today

 The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:

 

1)    Denial of Motion to Suppress upheld;

 

2)   Stare Decisis overturned, upholding previous dissenting view of Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry;

 

3) For-Profit corporation (Black Hills Advocate LLC) not eligible for appointment as guardian.

  

Summaries follows:

 

STATE v. HOLY, 2025 S.D. 19:  After having his Motion to Suppress Evidence denied, Defendant secured the following result in the trial court:

[¶13.] At a subsequent court trial, the circuit court relied upon stipulated facts to find [Defendant] guilty of both counts. The court suspended a prison sentence and ordered supervised probation for the possession of a controlled substance charge and imposed court costs for the misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charge.

This appeal focuses exclusively on the Motion to Suppress with Defendant arguing, “that police officers unreasonably extended the stop by asking about contraband without any level of suspicion.”  The SD Supreme Court rejected Defendant’s argument and affirmed.  This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Salter.

 

EARLL v. FARMERS MUTUAL INSURANCE, 2025 S.D. 20: Motor vehicle accident resulted in death.  Parents and Estate of Deceased collected $25,000 from tortfeasor’s liability insurer and then collected $75,000 from UIM (Underinsured Motorist) coverage of vehicle being driven by Deceased.  Parents and Estate sought additional coverage of $250,000 under “separate motor vehicle policy they purchased from Farmers Mutual, which provided coverage for two vehicles owned by the [family] that were not involved in the accident.”  The trial court ruled for Farmers Mutual, applying the precedent of De Smet Insurance Company of South Dakota v. Pourier, 2011 S.D. 47, ¶ 12, 802 N.W.2d 447, 451–52 (a 3/2 decision “which held that an ‘owned but not insured’ exclusion for UIM coverage was enforceable and not void as against public policy.”)  In this appeal, family requests the SD Supreme Court to overrule the Pourier decision, and the SD Supreme Court does so!  In overturning precedent, the Court handed down a lengthy opinion which “consider[s] the [four prongs of] the well-established doctrine of stare decisis.”  (the four prongs being, “(1) Quality of prior decision, (2) Workability, (3) Consistency, (4)Subsequent developments, and (5) Extent of Reliance.”) NOTE: The discussion by the SD Supreme Court in connection with the articulated criteria needed to overturn stare decisis precedent is traceable to its 2024 decision involving Governor Noem’s Request concerning potential conflicts of interest for legislators and an older 1920 Decision.  A concluding paragraph of the opinion states:

[¶48.] While we acknowledge Pourier’s careful reasoning by a sharply divided Court, our review of the public policy of this State for UM/UIM coverage and the Janus factors lead us to conclude that Pourier is an outlier in this Court’s decisions. For the reasons discussed above, we reverse our decision in Pourier and we hold that the “owned but not insured” exclusion to UIM coverage in motor vehicle policies—when used to deny coverage to an insured individual under circumstances like those in this case—violates South Dakota public policy.

NOTE: Retired Justice Judith Meierhenry’s dissenting opinion in Pourier was examined and found to be the proper rationale by this unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. 

 

GUARDIANSHIP AND CONSERVATORSHIP OF FLYTE, 2025 S.D. 21: In adjudicating conflicting requests [by Daughter and Son] to be appointed guardian of a dementia-afflicted parent who owns land worth more than $2 million, the trial court, acting sua sponte, appointed “Black Hills Advocate, LLC (BHA), a for-profit corporation” as guardian.  The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, stating:

[¶56.] We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint [Daughter] as Gerda’s guardian and conservator. We also conclude that SDCL 29A-5-304 does not restrict the circuit court’s authority to appoint a third-party guardian or conservator sua sponte where such appointment is in the best interests of the protected person. However, we hold that SDCL 29A-5-110 does not authorize for-profit entities to be appointed as guardians or conservators, with the exception of statutorily qualified banks and trust companies. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court’s appointment of BHA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Additionally, we award [Son] one-half of his requested appellate attorney fee.

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

 

These decisions may be accessed at

 

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