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 .