The SD Supreme Court handed down five decisions this morning, each one reversing the lower court’s ruling.
1) Right of 1st refusal for sale of cattle;
2) Communication in official proceeding is absolutely privileged;
3) Employer prevails in Work Comp proceeding;
4) Plaintiff survives statute of limitations ruling; and
5) Punitive damage award vacated.
Summaries follows:
ALEXANDER v. ESTATE OF HOBART, 2025 S.D. 39: This is a dispute over an alleged right of 1st refusal in regard to sale of cattle and the right to graze on federal land. The nature of this dispute, the result at the trial level and the result on appeal is summarized in the opening paragraph of the Court’s opinion:
[¶1.] Rodney Alexander and Steve Hobart entered into an agreement giving Alexander a right of first refusal to purchase Steve’s cattle and to have Steve’s national forest livestock grazing permit transferred to him. They, along with Steve’s son Nick, later signed an addendum clarifying that the agreement extended to Nick. Several years later, Nick sold the cattle, and the permit was transferred to a third party without the Hobarts first notifying Alexander and giving him the opportunity to exercise the right of first refusal. Alexander sued the Hobarts for breach of contract and fraud. Steve and Nick moved for judgment on the pleadings alleging the contract was void for impossibility of performance or, alternatively, that it was for an unlawful object. They also claimed the right of first refusal is an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of property. The circuit court granted the motion on the grounds of impossible performance. Alexander appeals, asserting that the circuit court erred in concluding the contract was void. We reverse the circuit court’s order and judgment on the pleadings. Additionally, through notice of review, Nick seeks review of the circuit court’s ruling that the right of first refusal is not an unreasonable restraint on alienation of property. We affirm the circuit court’s ruling on that issue.
This is a unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney.
ROWE v. ROWE, 2025 S.D. 40: South Dakota law, SDCL 20-11-5(2), establishes a privilege to communications made “in any legislative or judicial proceeding, or in any other official proceeding authorized by law.” Plaintiff filed suit, “for tortious interference with a business relationship” based upon a letter written by the Defendant (Plaintiff’s ex-wife, supported by her two daughters) to a Tribal Land Board, resulting in a cancellation of Plaintiff’s lease of certain tribal land. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the privilege afforded by SDCL 20-11-5(2), is an absolute one. The trial court denied the motion. The SD Supreme Court permitted this intermediate appeal and ruled for the Defendants, stating:
[¶40.] We conclude that the absolute privilege provided in SDCL 20-11-5(2) applies to claims of tortious interference with business relationships, and that the elements of the privilege are satisfied here. Further, although this privilege is an affirmative defense that must be pled, the issue of privilege was tried, within the summary judgment proceedings, by the implied consent of the parties.
This decision makes clear that the privilege applies to claims for tortious interference with business relationships. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. Circuit Judge Kelderman sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Salter.
PHAM v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, 2025 S.D. 41: Employer accepted a “work comp” claim and made payments for two years without a hearing or settlement agreement as to compensability. Thereafter Employer ceased making payments because of lack of causation. The ALJ upheld the Employer’s decision. The Circuit Court reversed, holding for the Employee on the basis that the Employer had not met its burden on the issue of causation, “reasoning that by initially accepting [Employee’s] claims as a compensable injury, the burden shifted to [Employer] to show a change in circumstances to justify suspending benefits.” The SD Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the ALJ’s ruling. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Circuit Judge Knoff sat on this case, in lieu of Justice Kern.
NELSON v. TINKCOM, 2025 S.D. 42: Plaintiff filed suit, “assert[ing] eight claims stemming from its alleged interest in a coin shop as well as a claim for conversion of its property.” Via a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and without filing an Answer, Defendants requested a dismissal based upon the statute of limitations. The trial court granted the dismissal. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
[¶35.] We affirm the circuit court’s assessment of the accrual date of the first six of the Business Interest Claims. However, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of those claims because the court did not resolve the defensive theories advanced by [Plaintiff] that could prevent the application of the statute of limitations. We remand so that those theories may be resolved in the ordinary course of this litigation. Similarly, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the tortious interference with a business relationship and civil conspiracy claims against the [Defendants]. Finally, we reverse the dismissal of the conversion claims.
This ruling is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Justice Myren. Justice Salter filed a brief, 2 paragraph, concurring opinion which addresses a litigant’s ability to raise the statute of limitations defense by way of a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
GOLDENVIEW READY-MIX, LLC v. GRANGAARD CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2025 S.D. 43: The jury’s award of punitive damages on a breach of contractual good faith claim is vacated on appeal by the SD Supreme Court. Although the case was submitted to the jury on the theory of fraud also, the jury did not find fraud. Still, the verdict form permitted an award of punitive damages and the jury so utilized it. In deciding to vacate the punitive damage award and not remand for re-submission to a jury, the Court stated:
[¶67.] Having concluded the implied obligation of good faith issue is preserved and properly before us, we reverse in part, vacating the punitive damages award. However, we decline to order a new trial on remand and affirm the circuit court’s judgment in other respects because we conclude there is insufficient evidence that “but for the error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Braun, 2024 S.D. 83, ¶ 26, 16 N.W.3d at 244 (citation omitted).
The Court’s ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice Salter.
These decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
