Thursday, August 21, 2025

Three Reversals by SD Supreme Court

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) Error to dismiss drug charges; 2) Error to grant Summary Judgement for City of Spearfish; 3) Error to rule for Dakota State University. Summaries follows: STATE v. BRADSHAW, 2025 S.D. 48: Trial Court dismissed criminal drug charges against Defendant based upon “unnecessary delay” in accordance with SDCL 23A-44-3. State appeals. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating: [¶19.] This record does not support the circuit court’s determination that the prosecution was unnecessarily delayed. The reasons cited by the circuit court do not support the exercise of its discretion under SDCL 23A-44-3. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with Opinion authored by Justice Myren. MAHMOUDI v. CITY OF SPEARFISH, 2025 S.D. 49: Plaintiff sued City for personal injuries which she sustained when she “stepped onto a metal culvert installed by the City.” Plaintiff pursued three theories: 1) nuisance; 2) negligence; and 3) recklessness (gross negligence). The trial court granted the City Summary Judgment on all claims. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded on Plaintiff’s negligence claim. The Court’s opinion is authored by Chief Justice Jensen. All 5 Justices voted to reverse and remand. Justice Kern filed a concurring opinion. The Court's opinion runs 18 pages, ¶¶ 1 - 43. Justice Kern's opinion runs 14 pages, ¶¶44 - 65. S.D. BOARD OF REGENTS v. MADISON HOUSING, 2025 S.D. 50: This litigation arises as a result of a construction dispute between DSU (Dakota State University) and the Madison Housing Commission, relating to the construction of “two eight-plex apartment buildings.” Litigation was instituted by DSU as a Declaratory Judgment Action. The trial court ruled for DSU. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding: [¶58.] We reverse the court’s entry of partial summary judgment in favor of DSU on the above two issues relating to the reserve account and buy-out provision, and vacate the final judgment and order entered by the court. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including the entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the Commission on the first two issues. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion by Justice DeVaney. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Thursday, August 14, 2025

Three New Decisions by SD Supreme Court

The SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) State Health Lab Report Upheld; 2) Civil Penalties of $2,000 and attorney fee award of $2,000 upheld against Mother who willfully disobeyed Visitation Order; 3) Summary Judgment involving (alleged) sale of goods Reversed and Remanded, but Request for Change of Judge Denied. Summaries follows: STATE v. ANDERSON, 2025 S.D. 45: Defendant was found asleep in his vehicle at 3 AM in a parking area adjacent to a storage facility. After blood and urine testing, the State Charged the Defendant with 3 counts (“(1) driving under the influence; (2) an alternative count for driving or being in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence; and (3) unauthorized ingestion of a controlled substance”). The Jury convicted Defendant of Counts 2 & 3, but found him not guilty of “driving under the influence.” Defendant’s appeal is focused primarily on evidentiary issues related to the “state health lab’s test results.” The SD Supreme Court rejected his assertions and affirmed. This is a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Justice Myren. LEFORS v. LEFORS, 2025 S.D. 46: This an action by Father against Mother for alleged willful violations of a Visitation Order. Invoking SDCL 25-4A-5, the trial court imposed a “$500 civil penalty for each of the four failed visits for a total of $2,000,” on Mother and also awarded Father $2,000 for attorney’s fees. The SD Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous (5-0) ruling, with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. Father’s request for appellate attorney fees was denied. ANDERSON INDUSTRIES v. THERMAL INTELLIGENCE, 2025 S.D. 47: This is a suit by a Seller for the sale of goods to Buyer, a Canadian Corporation. The resolution of this dispute involves application of the UCC, “implicating Article 2 of the UCC, which is codified within SDCL chapter 57A-2.” The trial court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff Seller. The SD Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the resolution of “questions of material fact regarding breach.” This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. Interestingly, the successful appellant requested that the Supreme Court assign this case to a different trial judge in the event of success on appeal. The SD Supreme Court rejected that request in note 10, stating, “This request is unfounded and based upon nothing more than the existence of an adverse decision, as counsel confirmed at oral argument.” These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Thursday, August 7, 2025

Overbroad Protection Order Reversed

 

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning.  Summary is set forth below.

1)    Overbroad Protection Order Reversed;

 

Summary follows:

 

WAGNER v. TOVAR, 2025 S.D. 44: Ex-girlfriend sought Order of Protection, on her behalf and also on behalf of two children, against Father of Children.  The Trial Court, “found that domestic abuse occurred and issued a five-year domestic permanent protection order that required [Father] not to have any contact with [ex-girlfriend] and their two children.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed, holding that, “The circuit court abused its discretion when it prohibited all contact between [Father] and his children for five years.”  The Court, “remand[ed] to the circuit court with direction to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary and to amend the protection order to provide appropriate contact and visitation between [Father]and the children that is consistent with the best interests of the children.”  This decision is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren.

 

This decision may be accessed at

 

http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .