In Dillman v. Madsen, a 14-year-old boy was severely injured while assisting with corn shelling on the defendant's farm in South Dakota, leading his mother to sue under the state's child labor statute (S.D.C.L. 60-12-3) after dropping a negligence claim. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, finding no violation that proximately caused the injury, but the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. The court reasoned that the statutory term "occupation" encompasses the minor's entire work environment, not just specific safe tasks, and that evidence of the defendant's warnings about dangers was improperly admitted because it improperly introduced fault considerations into a strict statutory liability case where the defendant's conduct was irrelevant. The decision emphasized that such warnings could not excuse a potential violation and had confused the jury on the key issues of dangerous occupation and proximate cause.
The case was a class action challenging South Dakota statutes (S.D.C.L. sections 13-34-16.2 and 13-34-16.3) that authorized the loan of textbooks and materials to students at parochial and church-operated schools, with plaintiffs alleging violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After the federal facial challenge was resolved against the plaintiffs on appeal, the district court exercised pendent jurisdiction over the state constitutional claim, certified a question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, and accepted that court's holding that the statutes were unconstitutional on their face under Article VI, Section 3, and Article VIII, Section 16, of the South Dakota Constitution. The court permanently enjoined the defendants from providing textbooks or using public funds for such purposes at parochial schools and awarded the plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988.
The case involved an insurance company's motion for attorney fees after prevailing in a coverage dispute with its insured, Bauer Dental Studio, under a policy covering property damage from defective dental crowns. The court awarded Bauer $11,465.45 in fees pursuant to S.D.C.L. section 58-12-3, finding that the insurer's refusal to pay was vexatious and without reasonable cause. The insurer had initially determined coverage existed in 1982 but then delayed settlement negotiations for two years in hopes of shifting blame to a third-party manufacturer, offered only a fraction of the estimated claim amount after suit was filed, and finally denied coverage based on the imprecise wording of the underlying complaint alleging economic loss. The court reasoned that the complaint's references to financial loss did not negate a claim for tangible property damage, as such damage is typically measured by repair or replacement costs, and the insurer's earlier acceptance of coverage made its subsequent actions unreasonable.
The case centered on competing claims to ownership of the bed of Lake Andes in South Dakota, brought by the Yankton Sioux Tribe against the State, with the County asserting a governmental interest and the United States intervening to protect a 1939 easement for a wildlife refuge. The court had previously ruled in the Tribe's favor on summary judgment after finding Lake Andes non-navigable, a determination upheld on remand. In this decision, the court denied all motions by the State, County, and United States to amend the judgment or reopen issues, granted the Tribe's motions, and confirmed the Tribe's ownership of the lakebed as established by historical title and prior proceedings. The ruling emphasized that the long-pending litigation should conclude without further relitigation of settled matters.
The case concerned whether American Family Insurance had a duty under an auto liability policy issued to Laurence Brady to defend or indemnify Brady's part-time employee Christopher Howe after Howe caused a one-car accident that killed one person and injured another. The court held that American Family had no such duty because Howe was not an additional insured under the policy's omnibus clause. The policy extended coverage only to permissive users operating the vehicle within the scope of permission, and the evidence showed Howe had only limited express permission for work-related tasks and no implied permission based on any course of conduct known to and acquiesced in by the Bradys. Applying South Dakota law, the court found no basis to adopt the initial-permission rule and concluded that the accident occurred during Howe's personal use outside any permitted scope.
This case involves a motion for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after a class action civil rights suit by Native American inmates at the South Dakota Penitentiary challenging conditions of confinement in the Adjustment Center under the Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The underlying litigation resulted in class certification, some policy changes on maximum segregation time, and findings that certain individual conditions required modification, but no overall Eighth Amendment violation or other constitutional breaches. The court held that the plaintiffs qualified as prevailing parties and calculated a reasonable fee by first determining a lodestar of $28,199.60 based on hours worked and hourly rates, then reducing it by 40 percent to account for the limited results obtained under Hensley v. Eckerhart and by another 10 percent for inadequate documentation. This produced a final award of $15,227.78 in fees plus $1,008.90 in costs.