Three new Decisions today by SD Supreme Court

TheSD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning: 1) compensable damages, condemnationaction; 2) calculation of restitution reversed;  3) Trial court’s award of Rule11 sanctions reversed.   Summariesfollow:  DEP'TOF TRANSPORTATION v. GUSTAFSON, 2026 S.D. 8: This suit addresses the question of exactly what is compensable in acondemnation action.  The property inquestion is around one of the most well-known intersections in South Dakota –I-29 and 41st Street in Sioux Falls. After a determination and payment “compensation for the fair value of the parts of their propertytaken for a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement.” Actual construction associatedwith this project, “also provided for theclosure of the 41st Street and Carolyn Avenue intersection, which eliminatedthe shortest indirect access route to the [landowners'] property from 41stStreet.”  Landowners sought additional compensation forthis “loss of access.”  The State said no.  The trial court held that, “that the closure of this intersectionsubstantially impaired their right of access, and that they sustained an injurypeculiar to their property.”  In a split decision (3-2) among the Justices,the Supreme Court reversed.  The Court’sdecision, (which runs 38 pages and 58 ¶ s), is authored by Justice DeVaney,with Chief Justice Jensen and Justice Salter in full agreement.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinion,agreed to by Justice Myren. The Dissent would, “affirm the circuitcourt’s order and remand for entry of the stipulated award of $1,329,389, plusinterests and costs, for a total of $1,510,901.”   STATEv. JANES, 2026 S.D. 9: Defendant appeals his conviction for child abuse or crueltyof a minor, his stepchild.  On appealDefendant raises 4 issues related to Evidentiary rulings, in addition to abusein sentencing and the determination of restitution.  He also raises ineffective assistance of counsel.The SD Supreme Court rejects all of Defendant’s arguments, except for thecalculation of restitution related to “the children’s counseling expenses” and remanded for re-evaluation.The Court’s decision is unanimous (5-0) with opinion authored by Chief JusticeJensen.   WELLSFARGO v. MYERS, 2026 S.D. 10:  This is adebt collection action against “Mary Myers.”  There are at least two individuals withthe name “Mary Myers.” The Sheriff served “Mary 2,” not “Mary 1” who would have beenthe correct party.  Attorney for Mary 2contacted Plaintiff’s counsel seeking a dismissal.  When the dismissal was not forthcoming, Mary2 sought rule 11 sanctions which the trial judge awarded in the amount of “$3,662.93 [for Mary 2’s] attorney fees.”  The SD Supreme Court reversed findingthat “conduct was notsanctionable under [the] Rule.”  (The opinion contains a detailed recitationof the relevant events.)  The Court’sdecision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Myren.  Justice Salter filed a concurring opinion.   Thesedecisions may be accessed at  http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .