referral fee dispute regarding accounting services for credit cards

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. My summary is set forth below. 1) Dispute regarding referral fee for accounting services for credit cards; Summary follows: LJP CONSULTING, LLC v. VERVENT, INC., 2025 S.D. 74: This dispute involves accounting services for the servicing of credit card accounts. In particular, this dispute involves the payment of referral fees in regard to the accounts referred to Defendant’s predecessor in title by Plaintiff and whether Defendant was/is required to continue to make the referral fee payments. A jury determined that Defendant was liable for payment of “$1,000,064.75 for unpaid referral fees.” The trial judge then entered a permanent injunction in regard to payment of future fees. The SD Supreme Court lowered the damage award and reversed and vacated the permanent injunction, stating: [¶48.] We affirm the circuit court’s determination that the Referral Agreement was not terminable at the will of Vervent. We reverse the court’s denial of Vervent’s Rule 50 motions for judgment as a matter of law and vacate the circuit court’s final judgment and order granting a permanent injunction. We remand for the entry of a judgment determining, as a matter of law, that Vervent’s liability for referral fees ended after it acquired First Equity and amending the damages award accordingly. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice DeVaney. This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Two New Decisions by the SD Supreme Court this morning

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) Summary Judgment for Defendants affirmed in dispute over purchase agreement; 2) False Report Conviction reinstated over fabricated false breath test; Summaries follow: TRIGGER ENERGY HOLDINGS v. STEVENS, 2025 S.D. 72: Plaintiffs sued to reform a purchase agreement which they had signed, asserting theories of economic duress, fiduciary duty breaches and other torts. The agreement related to the sale of Plaintiffs’ interests in one corporate LLC to another corporate LLC – both of which are named Defendants herein, together with an individual co-Defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The SD Supreme Court affirmed. This is a unanimous ruling (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. STATE v. BITELER, 2025 S.D. 73: This case involves an individual, on probation for DUI, required, as a condition of probation, to provide breathalyzer tests remotely through a remote testing device. This device takes a photo of the person submitting the sample. The deputy sheriff overseeing the 24/7 program detected photo “manipulation” in the Defendant’s submitted samples – meaning the breath test was given by another person with the wrong photo. Defendant was charged with 6 counts of false reporting under SDCL 22-11-9(3). The Magistrate Judge convicted Defendant of 1 of the 6 counts and acquitted the Defendant of the other 5 counts. Defendant appealed to the Circuit Court which reversed the one conviction based upon its interpretation of “report” as found in the statute. The State appealed. The SD Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court and reinstated the Magistrate Judge’s conviction. All five Justices agree on this result. The Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Myren, with two Justices in full concurrence. Justice Salter provided a special concurring opinion, in which Retired Justice Kern concurred. NOTE: this case was orally argued just a month ago, on November 17, 2025. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

Two new SD Supreme Court Decisions today

The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning: 1) dismissal for failure to prosecute reversed; 2) visitation rights ruling affirmed; Summaries follows: ARROWSMITH v. ODLE, 2025 S.D. 70: The trial court dismissed this personal injury action on the basis of failure to prosecute. The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating: [¶34.] Under the circumstances, we conclude the circuit court abused its discretion in granting [Defendant's] motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under both SDCL 15-11-11 and Rule 41(b) and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Retired Justice Kern. JESSOP v. COMBS, 2025 S.D. 71: In this visitation dispute, Mother requested that Father be granted only supervised visitation. Trial court granted Father unsupervised visitation, in accordance with SD’s Parenting Guidelines. Mother appealed. The SD Supreme Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court. And, because Mother did not prevail on any issue on appeal, her request for appellate attorneys was denied. This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Salter. These decisions may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .

TODAY: 8th Circuit Upholds D.S.D. (District of South Dakota) X 2

NORTHERN Division: Brendan LaBatte v. Karen Gangle: This lawsuit challenges the assertion of jurisdiction in the tribal court for the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Sioux Tribe, challenging the court's authority to entertain a DUI charge -- a charge which, although initially filed in tribal court, was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. The named Defendants were, "Karen Gangle, Prosecutor for the SWO, in their official capacity; Gary Gaikowski, Chief of Police for SWO, in their official capacity; Hon. Ruth Burns, Judge for the SWO Tribal Court, in their official capacity; Hon. Michael Swallow, Judge for the SWO Tribal Court, in their official capacity." The trial judge, Hon. Eric C. Schulte, dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. This 11 page opinion by the 8th Circuit, heavily laden with discussions of Indian Soverreignty, Federal Jurisdiction and Mootness, upholds the trial court's ruling, clarifying as follows: "[T]his case must be dismissed. We affirm the judgment of the district court, vacate the court’s decision, and therefore need not decide the jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and tribal court exhaustion issues the parties have briefed and argued. See Madore, 128 F.4th at 942-43." WESTERN Division: Daniel Lipsky v. Nate Cronin: This is a pro se 1983 civil rights claim filed against, "Nate Cronin; Bill Wainman; Michael Close; City of Hot Springs, SD." The trial judge, Hon. Lawrence L. Piersol, dismissed the complaint, partially sustaining a Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the remaining claims by way of Summary Judgment. The 8th Circuit affirmed in a brief one-paragraph per curiam opinion. These opinions may be viewed by clicking on the links below: Current Opinions are for Friday, December 12, 2025 242798P.pdf 12/12/2025 Brendan LaBatte v. Karen Gangle U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 24-2798 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern 251692U.pdf 12/12/2025 Daniel Lipsky v. Nate Cronin U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 25-1692 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western

Criminal Convictions Upheld

The SD Supreme Court handed down 1 new decision this morning. Summary is set forth below. 1) Criminal convictions upheld; Summary follows: STATE v. LONG, 2025 S.D. 69: This is a criminal appeal, aptly described in the opening paragraph as follows: [¶1.] Lance Long was convicted in Corson County of three counts of rape, three counts of aggravated assault, and five counts of abuse of or cruelty to a minor. The victims were Long’s stepchildren. Other act evidence of similar conduct by Long involving these same children was admitted at trial over Long’s objection. The circuit court denied Long’s motion for judgment of acquittal regarding one of the rape counts. Long appeals his convictions, and we affirm. This is a unanimous decision (5-0), with opinion authored by Justice Myren. NOTE: In this opinion, Justice Kern is shown as participating as a “Retired Justice.” Justice Gusinski is shown as “not participating. This is the first time I have seen Justice Gusinski’s name on an opinion as a Supreme Court Justice. 😊 This decision may be accessed at http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .