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 .
