Richard Howard Battey

In Udager v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review after an ALJ denied her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits based on alleged disabilities from bulging discs, pain, and related mental health issues. The court reversed the ALJ's decision and remanded the matter for further hearing, concluding that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. The ALJ had improperly rejected opinions from treating physicians, failed to obtain a promised neurological report or vocational expert testimony, misapplied the Medical-Vocational Guidelines despite evidence of stooping limitations, and did not meet the Commissioner's burden at step five of the sequential evaluation process.

healthcarefederal power

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute in which St. Paul Reinsurance sought a declaratory judgment that its policy with Live Line Maintenance did not cover bodily injuries sustained by defendant James Cornelius during a 2002 work incident on electrical lines. The court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that Cornelius qualified as an employee of Live Line rather than an independent contractor or temporary worker. Under South Dakota law governing insurance policy interpretation and the definition of employment status, the court applied a multi-factor test focused on control, proprietary interest, and independence, finding that Cornelius worked under Baldwin's supervision for six years without operating a separate enterprise. Because the policy expressly excluded coverage for injuries to employees arising in the course of employment, the insurer had no duty to indemnify the defendants.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a cardiothoracic surgeon with bipolar disorder whose hospital medical staff privileges were suspended after a manic episode occurred during surgery. The surgeon sued the hospital under Titles I and III of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to the hospital on the federal claims, holding that the surgeon was not an employee covered by Title I or the Rehabilitation Act because he functioned as an independent contractor who billed patients directly without compensation or benefits from the hospital. It further ruled that Title III did not apply because the surgeon was not a client or customer of the hospital. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

civil rightslabor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a challenge by the state of South Dakota, the city of Oacoma, and Lyman County to the U.S. Department of the Interior's decision to take a 91-acre parcel of land into trust for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act. The plaintiffs argued that the statute unconstitutionally delegates legislative authority to the executive branch and that the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the constitutionality of 25 U.S.C. § 465, finding that it provides sufficient boundaries and intelligible principles to guide the Secretary's discretion, drawing parallels to other statutes approved by the Supreme Court. It also determined that the agency's decision was reasonable after considering all relevant regulatory factors.

federal powerproperty

This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by relator Jay Bryant against Williams Building Corporation (WBC), alleging that WBC submitted false claims to the U.S. Air Force under a bathroom remodeling contract at Ellsworth Air Force Base by failing to report and properly handle discovered asbestos, continuing work without notification, and concealing an obligation to pay for testing and abatement. The United States declined to intervene, and WBC moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, holding that the site superintendent's knowledge and actions could be imputed to WBC and that a reasonable jury could find both direct false claims based on daily reports certifying compliance and a reverse false claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(7) due to a specific contractual obligation to notify the government of suspected asbestos.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendant Orville Black Spotted Horse, who was charged with attempted aggravated sexual abuse on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in violation of federal law. He filed a motion to suppress statements made during an FBI interview on September 20, 1999, and a subsequent polygraph examination on December 8, 1999, claiming the statements were involuntary and his constitutional rights were violated. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion after finding that Black Spotted Horse had been advised of and knowingly waived his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The district court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations without conducting de novo review because the defendant filed no objections, and therefore denied the motion to suppress.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned cattle owners who sued a vaccine manufacturer after their animals suffered illness and death following administration of licensed bovine vaccines, raising eight state-law claims including strict product liability, implied warranties, failure to warn, false advertising, and fraud on the agency. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that all claims were preempted by the federal Virus-Serum-Toxin Act governing animal vaccines. Following an Eighth Circuit remand for preemption analysis, the district court applied federal preemption principles to the licensed products and evaluated whether the state claims conflicted with or were displaced by the federal regulatory scheme.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by the parents of a 17-year-old who fell to his death from an unguarded cliff at Sheep Mountain Table in Badlands National Park. Plaintiffs alleged negligence by the National Park Service for failing to post warning signs or install barriers on the well-traveled road and overlook area. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity applied. The decision whether to implement safety measures was discretionary, not mandated by any statute or regulation, and was susceptible to policy analysis involving economic costs, environmental impact, and preservation of natural aesthetics. Because the exception barred the claim, the suit could not proceed.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

In Giedosh v. Little Wound School Board, Inc., white former employees of a school on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation sued the nonprofit school board under Title VII for alleged racial discrimination in their terminations, with one plaintiff also bringing an ADA disability claim and all plaintiffs adding related state-law claims. The court converted the board's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the board qualified as an "Indian tribe" exempt from Title VII and the ADA. The core reasoning was that the board was incorporated to serve Indian education and welfare, was controlled by tribal members, received Bureau of Indian Affairs funding, and operated within reservation boundaries, meeting the criteria for the exemption established in prior case law; the court also noted an alternative exemption under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(i) for preferential Indian hiring near reservations.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a dispute over whether the Hill City School District was required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to provide door-to-door transportation to student Laura Beth Malehorn as a related service in her individualized education plan (IEP). The parent appealed a state hearing examiner's ruling that the new IEP developed after the family moved to the district did not require such transportation, despite an earlier IEP from another district that had included it. The court held that the student was not entitled to transportation as a related service because the IEP team had properly considered her unique needs and the plan was reasonably calculated to provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. However, the court awarded reimbursement for mileage costs incurred prior to December 6, 1996, when the new IEP took effect.

civil rights

The case involved mining companies and affected property owners challenging a Lawrence County voter-approved ordinance that prohibited new or amended permits for surface metal mining in the Spearfish Canyon Area, covering about 40,000 acres mostly within federal national forest land. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on their claim that the ordinance was preempted by federal and state mining laws allowing mineral development on public lands and unpatented claims. The court analyzed the ordinance's broad prohibition alongside federal statutes permitting mining exploration and operations, as well as precedents like Blue Circle and LaFarge. It concluded that the ordinance conflicted with federal law by imposing an absolute ban without criteria or conditions, unlike narrower regulations upheld in other cases.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

The case involved the United States seeking civil forfeiture of residential property at 1512 Lark Drive under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), alleging its use in methamphetamine distribution. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ordering forfeiture of the property and rejecting the claims of owner Troy Fairbanks and his wife Pam Fairbanks. Probable cause was established through Fairbanks' guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and corroborating evidence from a search and witness statements showing drugs stored and transacted at the residence. No genuine issues of material fact existed on the property's connection to illegal activity, the forfeiture's proportionality under the Eighth Amendment, or Pam Fairbanks' lack of sufficient ownership interest to assert an innocent owner defense.

criminal lawpropertyfederal powerprocedure

John Thomas Curtis was convicted in South Dakota state court of attempted murder and kidnapping, receiving concurrent sentences of 25 years and life imprisonment, after which his direct appeal was affirmed. Following the denial of his first federal habeas petition and an unsuccessful state habeas proceeding raising ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims, Curtis filed this second federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court denied the petition, concluding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and that the state court's merits adjudication was reasonable under the amended standards of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2254. The court conducted a de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation after determining the new provisions applied to the post-enactment filing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a lender liability lawsuit brought by insurance companies Great West Casualty and IB&MR against Travelers Indemnity Company, alleging that Travelers exerted excessive control over an independent insurance agency (FAS) to which it had loaned money, leading to claims of conversion, tortious interference with contractual relations, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty after FAS mishandled premiums and filed for bankruptcy. The court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the undisputed facts showed Travelers did not own stock in FAS, place employees on its board, or otherwise exercise actionable control over its operations, so the lender liability theory failed and no duty existed to support the negligence or fiduciary duty claims, leaving no genuine issues of material fact.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved plaintiffs suing multiple defendants for copyright infringement and unfair trade practices, alleging that books on contract bridge published by defendants copied their copyrighted pamphlet. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants. It lacked subject matter jurisdiction over many claims because the allegedly infringing works were created outside the US by foreign authors, lacked personal jurisdiction over some defendants, found the claim against one defendant barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and determined no infringement on the merits as the works were not substantially similar. Consequently, the unfair competition claims also failed.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, an inmate at the Lawrence County Jail sued the county and its officials after being sexually assaulted by his cellmate, bringing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect him and a state-law negligence claim. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claim and judgment on the pleadings on the negligence claim. The core reasoning was that there was no evidence the defendants were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff from other inmates, so they could not be liable for deliberate indifference under Farmer v. Brennan. The negligence claim was barred by sovereign immunity under South Dakota statutes, and the court rejected arguments that federal law preempted or that the immunity violated the state constitution's open courts provision.

civil rightscriminal lawtorts & liability

The case concerned a dispute between the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota over which entity had authority to regulate hunting and fishing by nonmember Indians and non-Indians on fee-owned lands and on lands taken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within the exterior boundaries of the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation. The court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, holding that the State possessed exclusive jurisdiction to enforce its hunting and fishing laws against those groups on the disputed lands. The decision rested on U.S. Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit precedents applying the Montana v. United States framework, which found that neither the 1851 or 1868 Fort Laramie Treaties nor the Tribe's inherent sovereignty (under either Montana exception) preserved tribal regulatory authority over nonmembers on fee or taken lands, and that state jurisdiction therefore applied. The ruling expressly did not address regulation of tribal members.

criminal lawfederal powerproperty

This case involved a constitutional challenge by Planned Parenthood and affiliated providers against South Dakota's HB 1131, which amended state law to require one-parent notification for abortions on unemancipated minors without a judicial bypass option, impose a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent rules, establish criminal penalties for violations, and allow civil suits for punitive and treble damages. The U.S. District Court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment after staying the law's effective date, with jurisdiction under federal question authority. Key undisputed facts highlighted the state's single abortion provider, long travel distances for patients, and socioeconomic barriers. The court's core reasoning drew on Roe v. Wade's recognition of a liberty interest in abortion decisions under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, while evaluating state regulatory interests and potential burdens on access, particularly for minors and low-income women.

abortioncivil rightsfamily lawcriminal law

This case involved Federal Beef Processors suing CBS and employee McClean in state court to block CBS from broadcasting a secretly obtained videotape of operations at Federal's slaughter plant. After the state court issued a preliminary injunction against the broadcast, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed it as an unconstitutional prior restraint, allowing the airing, and the case was later removed to federal court where McClean was dismissed on summary judgment and the injunction vacated. The court denied McClean's motion for attorney's fees under South Dakota law, finding that Federal had a reasonable belief in his involvement when filing and the claims were neither frivolous nor malicious. It granted CBS's motion for up to $50,000 in fees from the injunction bond, concluding that the improvidently issued injunction caused recoverable defense costs under state statute.

free speechprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a rancher challenging the U.S. Forest Service's denial of a term grazing permit on land transferred to the Nebraska National Forest from a prior owner he had leased from. The plaintiff argued that handbook provisions gave him priority based on his immediate prior use, but the Forest Service denied the application to first restore grazing capacity to existing permittees whose allotments had been reduced. The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service and affirmed the denial. The court held that the agency's interpretation of the handbook was reasonable and entitled to deference, as the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

environmentfederal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory