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 .