Four New Decisions Today

The SD Supreme Court handed down 4 decisionsthis morning: 1) transgender woman denied amended birthcertificate; 2)  doctrine of judicial estoppel endsone part of family dispute over land; 3) DOT employees shielded from law suit;   4) Rule 11 sanctions availableagainst client.    Summaries follow: AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NIELSEN, 2026 S.D.12: Transgender woman sought to amend official birth certificate, so as “to change the sex designation from male to femaleto reflect her current gender identity.”  The trialcourt denied relief.  The SD Supreme Courtaffirmed the denial of relief.  All fivejustices voted to affirm.  The Court’s opinionis authored by Justice DeVaney.  JusticeSalter filed a concurring opinion in which he specifically endorses a concurringopinion by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Alita in a recent decision, [UnitedStates v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495, 559 (2025)].  Chief Justice Jensen endorsed Justice Salter’sconcurring opinion (endorsing Justice Alito). Newly appointed Justice Gusinsky did not participate in this case.    BRYANT v. BRYANT, 2026 S.D. 13: Two brothers areinvolved in litigation against each other and also their mother. The Father isdeceased and divorced from the Mother prior to his death.  The trial court held that the brothers heldtitle jointly, but that Mother’s claim is barred by judicialestoppel.  Noting that a partitionaction involving the brothers is still pending, Mother appeals under SDCL15-6-54(b).  The SD Supreme Court acceptedthe appeal and affirmed.  This decisionis unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen. This casewas submitted to the Court less than a month ago, on January 10, 2026.  ESTATE OF SANBORN v. PETERSON, ET AL, 2026 S.D.14: Two girls died in a motor vehicle accident on SD Highway 218.  Claiming that “that the fatal accident resulted from the DOTemployees’ negligent failure to maintain and repair the adjacent gravelshoulder in compliance with governing standards,” Mother of the girls filed suitagainst six DOT employees.  The trialcourt granted summary judgment for Defendants on the basis of the “public duty doctrine.”  The SD Supreme Court affirmed but did so onthe basis of “sovereign immunity,” not “public duty.” The SDSupreme Court’s opinion is authored by Justice Salter, with two Justices infull agreement. Chief Justice Jensen filed a brief  concurring opinion.  Retired Justice Kern filed a dissenting opinionin which she asserts the duty imposed on Defendants is a “ministerial duty,” not a “discretionary duty.” Justice Kern’s dissent containscolor photographs depicting an unacceptable drop-off of up to 7 inches in theshoulder.     DISSOLUTION OF HEALY RANCH, INC., 2026 S.D. 15: This litigation is seeminglynever-ending.  In this chapter, the issueis a $240,000 sanction imposed on a litigant under Rule 11.  The SD Supreme Court reverses and “remand[s]for a hearing and reconsideration of the various types of sanctions, and if amonetary sanction is imposed, a determination that includes Bret’s ability topay the monetary sanction.” This is a 3-2 decision, with the Court’s opinion authoredby Retired Justice Kern.  Justice Salterfiles a concurring opinion expressing the belief that monetary sanctions, whilepermissible against an attorney representing a client, are not permissibleagainst a client/litigant only.  Justice DeVaneyconcurs with Justice Salter.  NOTE: TheLitigant perfected his appeal in this matter pro se.  These decisions may be accessed at   http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .