Robert A. Amundson

A.P. & Sons Construction sued Earle Johnson and others seeking personal liability for unpaid labor and materials supplied during development of the Westview Addition after Bauman, who had arranged the project, defaulted on payments. The trial court ruled Johnson was not personally liable beyond his guarantee on the development loan secured by a mortgage on his land, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court found no joint venture between Johnson and Bauman because the parties anticipated separate profits rather than joint ones, with Bauman profiting only from home construction and Johnson receiving proceeds from lot sales only after the loan was repaid. Johnson had not contracted directly with A.P. & Sons or other contractors and had made no additional guarantees.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In State v. Jolley, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree felony murder and child abuse in connection with the death of his six-year-old son from blunt force trauma; his co-defendant had previously pleaded guilty to child abuse charges. Jolley appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding other-acts evidence about the co-defendant to show identity or modus operandi, by limiting inquiry into the sentence she avoided through her plea, and by admitting other-acts evidence against him. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the proffered other-acts evidence lacked sufficient similarity to the charged conduct to be admissible under the rules governing such evidence and that Jolley received an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendant about her plea agreement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether SkillPath, a not-for-profit corporation offering business seminars on topics like computer training and secretarial skills primarily to employees, was exempt from South Dakota sales and use taxes assessed by the Department of Revenue for seminars held in the state from 1996 to 1998. The hearing examiner initially found the seminars exempt under SDCL 10-45-12.1 as fitting SIC categories for data processing or business schools, but the Secretary of Revenue reversed this, classifying them instead under SIC 8299 or 7389, and the circuit court affirmed the tax assessment. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision, holding that SkillPath's services did not qualify as a vocational school or continuing education program under the statute's exemptions for educational services in major group 82 or continuing education programs. The court reasoned that tax exemptions must be strictly construed and that SkillPath failed to meet its burden of proving it fell within the exempt SIC classifications rather than the non-exempt ones.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

Kevin Leisinger sued his former spouse Cheryl Jacobson for malicious prosecution, claiming she filed multiple criminal complaints against him during their divorce proceedings without probable cause, all of which were later dismissed or resulted in acquittal. A jury awarded Leisinger compensatory and punitive damages, and Jacobson appealed, challenging the trial court's jury instructions on prosecutorial discretion and arguing that the punitive damages were excessive. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case, applying review standards that require jury instructions supported by the evidence and assessing damages for abuse of discretion absent constitutional claims.

family lawtorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case concerned motions by court-appointed defense attorneys to withdraw from representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal, on the grounds that the appeals were frivolous, and whether the traditional Anders procedure for such withdrawals should continue in South Dakota. The Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the existing Anders approach should be replaced by a new state rule requiring counsel to file a brief with a Section A certifying a thorough review and lack of meritorious issues, plus a Section B allowing the client to assert any claims of error. The core reasoning rested on U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Gideon v. Wainwright, Griffin v. Illinois, Douglas v. California, and Anders v. California, which guarantee equal appellate rights and counsel for indigent defendants under the Fourteenth Amendment, while tailoring the procedure to balance ethical obligations against those rights and avoid meaningless appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

In Beck v. City of Rapid City, plaintiffs sought class certification in a lawsuit to recover sales taxes paid to the city on businesses at the Rapid City Airport during a period of invalid annexation, following a prior ruling that the annexation lacked contiguity. The circuit court granted class certification for those who paid the taxes, but the City appealed, arguing that its own administrative refund process with $250,000 appropriated was superior to a class action. The South Dakota Supreme Court remanded the case for reexamination, holding that the circuit court must specifically determine whether the class action meets the superiority requirement under SDCL 15-6-23 and whether the class is adequately defined, as the administrative remedy and issues of class manageability and notice were not fully addressed.

taxesprocedure

Jim Schwaiger, a radiologist, sued Mitchell Radiology Associates for alleged misrepresentations during recruitment about opportunities to become a partner in the practice. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of MRA, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the employment contract explicitly stated that any sale of stock ownership was at the discretion of the shareholders and required their unanimous approval, and included an integration clause that superseded prior discussions. Additionally, there was no duty to disclose the shareholders' voting agreement because the written contract made clear that ownership terms were fully discretionary.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

Heine Farms, a partnership planning a large cattle feedlot in Yankton County, challenged an initiated zoning ordinance that would prohibit waste management systems exceeding 7,500 animal units, effectively blocking their operation. The ordinance was placed on the ballot through an initiative petition, adopted by voters, and then enforced by the county despite Heine's lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court ruled the ordinance illegal and unenforceable, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The core reasoning was that state law requires a comprehensive zoning plan before any zoning ordinance can be enacted, and Yankton County lacked such a plan, so neither the county commission nor voters via initiative could adopt the measure. The court also rejected procedural challenges to the lawsuit's form.

propertybusiness & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved Vincente Chavez, Sr., who was convicted after pointing a handgun at police officers executing a no-knock search warrant at his home in connection with a robbery investigation; Chavez claimed he mistook the officers for armed intruders seeking revenge and did not intend to shoot them. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for aggravated assault and commission of a felony with a firearm but remanded for corrections to the sentences. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the jury's findings on the assault charges and that the trial court's handling of the multiple counts did not require reversal of the convictions, while the sentencing improperly applied consecutive mandatory minimums under the firearm enhancement statutes without sufficient justification for the structure imposed.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Hentz v. City of Spearfish, a homeowner petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandamus to compel the City to enforce its zoning ordinance requiring a 12-foot side setback for multi-story homes after the City issued a building permit allowing a neighbor's addition with a smaller setback. The trial court granted the writ, finding the permit unlawful, but declined to order removal or modification of the completed addition. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy limited to compelling unperformed duties and cannot undo completed actions like the issuance of the permit and construction of the addition. The court also noted that ordering demolition would be inequitable because the neighbor was not a party to the lawsuit and had relied on the permit in good faith. Hentz's request for attorney fees was denied for lack of statutory authority.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Shirley Brown, who sold apartments via a contract for deed to the Donovans; the contract included a nonassignment clause requiring her written consent. The Donovans assigned their interest to attorney Joan Powell to settle legal fees, and Powell made payments that Brown initially accepted before refusing them and filing a foreclosure action alleging defaults on payments, taxes, and insurance. The trial court allowed Powell to intervene, found that Brown had waived the nonassignment clause by accepting Powell's payments, determined the defaults were not material and were caused by miscommunication, and ordered enforcement of the contract terms between Brown and Powell. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that acceptance of payments constituted waiver of the clause under prior precedent. The core reasoning centered on equitable principles and the parties' conduct demonstrating acquiescence to the assignment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Joanne Gauer, a teacher and counselor whose contract with Kadoka School District was not renewed after the board learned of her prior North Dakota teaching license suspension for sexual misconduct with a student and her failure to disclose that history. The board cited insubordination, lack of professional judgment, and gross immorality as grounds following a closed meeting and a formal hearing. Gauer appealed, arguing violations of due process and that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. The circuit court affirmed the board, and the South Dakota Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that procedural requirements were met and the decision was supported by evidence of the undisclosed misconduct. The court applied the standard of reviewing only the legality of the board's action, not its wisdom.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Daron White Eagle, as special administrator for his father's estate, suing the City of Fort Pierre and former police chief Kevin Steever individually and officially, claiming they negligently or intentionally caused the father's death. After an earlier appeal resolved jurisdictional issues against the City, no further record activity occurred for over a year following remand to the trial court. The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims with prejudice for failure to prosecute under South Dakota statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff bore the burden to advance the case and had not shown good cause or due diligence to justify the unreasonable delay, making dismissal appropriate under the applicable procedural rules.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners' decision to revoke Dr. Reuben Setliff's medical license after determining he had testified falsely under oath in a malpractice trial about a prior peer review of his practice in Wyoming. The circuit court reversed the Board's revocation order. On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the reversal, holding that the Board's proceedings were flawed due to procedural irregularities, including the Board's own initiation of the complaint and potential bias on the investigative committee. The court also noted Setliff's reliance on legal advice regarding whether the Wyoming review constituted a privilege restriction that required disclosure.

healthcareprocedure

The case involved a truck driver who was injured when he slipped and fell into a gap between his trailer and a restaurant's unloading dock, allegedly due to snow and grease on the surface. A jury awarded the plaintiff $290,000 in damages on his negligence claim against the restaurant, and the restaurant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of its contributory negligence and assumption of the risk defenses as a matter of law, certain jury instructions, and various evidentiary rulings. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the verdict, holding that the evidence supported a finding of negligence by the restaurant and that the trial court did not err in its instructions or evidentiary decisions. The court further determined that issues of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk were properly submitted to the jury rather than resolved as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Bohlen v. Tyler, landlord Earl Bohlen sued tenant Kathy Tyler for breach of a three-year commercial lease after she vacated the premises early and refused further rent payments, with Tyler defending on grounds that she had been released or that the lease was unenforceable due to a zoning violation prohibiting retail use. The trial court granted summary judgment to Tyler based on the zoning defense. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the tenant's computer store use actually violated Milbank's zoning ordinances and whether any violation rendered the lease void. The court reasoned that Tyler bore the burden of proving the use was illegal, but the record showed no city enforcement actions, permitted similar uses in the building, and potential for variances or conditional approvals under the ordinances.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Knecht v. Weber, Gary Knecht appealed the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in three respects during his conviction for first-degree manslaughter: failing to challenge the sufficiency of evidence that the killing occurred in a cruel and unusual manner, failing to object to the prosecutor's use of a defense expert's report to impeach Knecht's testimony, and failing to obtain an expert forensic witness. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court's dismissal of the petition. Applying the two-part Strickland test, the court held that Knecht failed to show either that counsel's performance fell below constitutional standards or that any alleged deficiencies caused prejudice by creating a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome, noting that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that counsel had consulted with experts informally.

criminal law

Mario Hofman was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison; after his direct appeal was denied, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court found that several post-polygraph confessions were involuntary but concluded that their admission at trial caused no prejudice, and it denied relief. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that trial counsel's failure to timely move to suppress the subsequent confessions (made to a cousin, a deputy, and a jailer) after the initial involuntary confession was suppressed constituted deficient performance under the Strickland standard. The court further determined that this error prejudiced Hofman because the remaining evidence was not so overwhelming that the outcome would have been the same, thereby violating his right to a fair trial, and it remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John and Peggy Tisdel, who were denied a variance by the Beadle County Board of Commissioners for an enclosed deck on their cabin that violated a 30-foot setback ordinance from the high watermark of Lake Byron. The Tisdels appealed to the circuit court, which upheld the Commission's decision as not arbitrary or capricious, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the Commission relied on competent evidence, including measurements from the vegetation line as the high watermark per state recommendations and local ordinances, and there was no showing of improper motives or false information.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Linda Vnuck's claim against Allen Foss's South Dakota estate for unpaid child support arrears stemming from a 1976 Minnesota divorce decree that ordered monthly payments for their three children. Allen paid only part of the support before moving to South Dakota, where he died in 2000 without any prior enforcement actions having been filed in either state. The trial court denied the claim, applying South Dakota's ten-year statute of limitations for foreign judgments under SDCL 15-2-8 rather than the twenty-year limit for in-state judgments under SDCL 15-2-6. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Minnesota order, though a judgment by operation of law entitled to full faith and credit under SDCL 25-7-7.4, did not automatically qualify as a judgment of a South Dakota court without registration or filing under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or similar procedures.

family lawprocedure