The SD Supreme Court handed down five decisions this morning:
1) Reemployment benefits appropriate;
2) Set back restriction upheld by Supreme Court;
3) Defense verdict in personal injury action upheld by 4-1 ruling
4) Collateral attack under Rule 60(b)(6) permitted by Supreme Court;
5) Eviction from 5200 acre farm upheld.
Summaries follows:
BLACK HILLS ADVENTURE LODGING, LLC v. DLR, REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE DIVISION, 2025 S.D. 4: This case involves an application, “for reemployment assistance benefits with the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation” by an individual who cleaned cabins. The defense was that she was an independent contractor, not an employee. The ALJ and the Circuit Court ruled that this an employment situation and “ordered [Employer] to pay into the unemployment compensation fund based on the wages paid to [employee] and others similarly situated to her.” The SD Supreme Court affirmed, but ordered that the language “and others similarly situated” was a ‘bridge too far’ (my words, not the Court’s) because:
[¶38.] Permitting the Department to hold [Employer] liable for “others similarly situated” to [Employee] would run directly counter to the individualized analysis that must be made to determine whether an individual is an employee of a putative employer.
This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
DECRAMER v. DORALE, MCCOOK COUNTY BD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2025 S.D. 5: County Board of Adjustment granted variance from 9 foot setback rule (“structures must be set back a minimum of nine feet from neighboring property lines”) to home builder after he had already constructed his house. The Circuit Court denied relief to neighbor, sought by a petition for writ of certiorari. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
[¶22.] Because the Board acted illegally and in excess of its authority by granting a variance that did not comply with either SDCL 11-2-53(2) or the Ordinance, the circuit court should have reversed the decision of the Board and vacated the grant of the variance.
This decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
GEERDES v. LIKNESS, 2025 S.D. 6: This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The jury found for the Defendant on the issue of causation. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial, premised on the assertion that Defendant hadadmitted causation, was denied. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, in a (4-1) ruling. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren. Justice Kern dissented, stating:
[¶30.] In my view, defense counsel admitted causation and the circuit court erred in submitting the causation question to the jury and abused its discretion in denying Geerdes’ motion for a new trial.
ESTATE OF MACK, 2025 S.D. 7: This is a collateral attack upon a probate order of distribution. The attack is lodged under SDCL 15-6-60(b)(6) – “Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” The recipient’s attorney at the time had not communicated with the recipient and was in the process of being disciplined by the State Bar. The trial court denied relief. But, the SD Supreme Court reversed, holding:
[¶25.] Based upon [Recipient’s] unrefuted affidavit and the pending disciplinary proceedings at the time involving [his attorney], in which the Board expressed “serious concerns” about his ability to practice law, we conclude that extraordinary circumstances existed as required by Rule 60(b)(6) to set aside the order of distribution. Because the circuit court determined the distribution was fair and equitable, it concluded that no injustice would occur by denying the motion to vacate. The circuit court’s assessment of the distribution was not based on a current valuation of the estate assets and was made without affording Robert an opportunity for a hearing on the proposed distribution. Under these circumstances, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the order for distribution pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).
This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.
STOCK v. GARRETT, 2025 S.D. 8: This litigation involves 5,200 acres of farm land in Sully County apparently worth slightly more than $10 million. The plaintiffs sued claiming a right to possession under a lease with an option to purchase, alleging a default in the lease payments. Jury trial resulted in a verdict for Plaintiffs which the trial court enforced by ordering eviction. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. All five justices voted to affirm in a 3-2 ruling. The majority opinion is authored by Chief Justice Jensen. Justice DeVaney filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kern agreed. The litigation was complicated by the fact a parallel proceeding had been filed in federal court by Plaintiffs. The purpose of Justice DeVaney’s concurring opinion is to express another view in regard to the federal court proceeding, as explained by Justice DeVaney as follows:
[¶65.] I concur with the majority opinion, but I write separately on the parallel litigation issue because I arrive at the same result in a different manner.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
