Thursday, June 12, 2025

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 .