Oren P. Coler

This case concerned proceedings to adjudicate two young children as dependent and neglected and to terminate their parents' rights. The trial court found the children dependent and neglected based on evidence of inadequate care and then held a dispositional hearing the same day, entering an order terminating parental rights. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the termination order, concluding that the dispositional hearing was scheduled with only two hours' notice, depriving the parents of a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present evidence in violation of due process and statutory requirements for juvenile proceedings.

family lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved the conviction of appellant in Lincoln County circuit court (venue transferred from Minnehaha County) for third-degree burglary of a pickup truck with intent to commit larceny, under SDCL 22-32-9, resulting in a four-to-eight-year sentence. Appellant appealed, arguing denial of a fair trial due to the trial court's rejection of motions for a pretrial mental examination, trial continuance, separate jury voir dire, and a mistrial after a juror disclosed acquaintance with a witness. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the affidavit for mental examination raised no doubt about competency to stand trial and that voluntary intoxication or drug use did not negate criminal intent under SDCL 22-5-5, while the other procedural motions were properly denied based on the record and applicable statutes. The factual background included eyewitness accounts of appellant tampering with the vehicle and his post-arrest statements suggesting possible mental issues or intoxication, which the court found insufficient to require further examination or alter the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a father and son who sued tavern owners for negligence after the son was injured in a car accident in North Dakota, allegedly caused by an intoxicated driver who had been served alcohol by the defendants in violation of South Dakota laws prohibiting Sunday sales and sales to minors or intoxicated persons. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that, absent a dram shop or civil damage statute, common law does not impose liability on sellers of alcohol for injuries resulting from a buyer's intoxication, as the buyer's consumption is the proximate cause. The court reviewed the state's legislative history of enacting and repealing such statutes, as well as recent failed attempts to pass new ones, and declined to create a judicial remedy, leaving the matter to the legislature.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatorycriminal law

In Miller v. Miller, both parents sought modification of a 1974 divorce decree that had awarded custody of their three-year-old son to the paternal grandparents, following each parent's remarriage in 1975. The trial court consolidated the petitions, took evidence, and concluded that although circumstances had changed, neither parent's new situation provided a sufficiently stable home to justify removing the child from the grandparents, who continued to offer a fit environment. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous under RCP Rule 52(a) and that the parent seeking modification must prove both a substantial material change and that the child's best interests require the change, per SDCL 25-4-45 and 30-27-19 as interpreted in Masek v. Masek. The court noted the mother's visitation rights remained intact and she could reapply later if circumstances warranted.

family law

The case involved the conviction of the defendant for distributing marijuana under South Dakota law. The defendant appealed, arguing that the drug control statute was unconstitutional due to a defective title, unreasonable classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance, and improper delegation of authority, and that the trial court made errors regarding undercover agent testimony, jury instructions on entrapment, limits on cross-examination, and a special instruction to the jury. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute's title was valid under prior precedent, the classification had a rational basis and was presumed constitutional absent evidence to the contrary, and there were no reversible errors in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the appellant being charged with murder for fatally shooting Doyle Henry during a bar altercation in Pennington County, South Dakota, after Henry assaulted another patron. The jury convicted her of second-degree manslaughter rather than murder, and she appealed arguing errors in jury instructions on lesser included offenses, insufficient evidence for the conviction, and improper admission of statements. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the instructions properly allowed for lesser offenses under state law, the evidence supported the manslaughter verdict including on self-defense claims, and no reversible errors occurred in the trial proceedings. The core reasoning emphasized that the use of deadly force was not justified given the circumstances of the fight and the applicable standards for defense of others.

criminal law

The case concerned a petition for mandamus to require a South Dakota school district to loan textbooks to students attending nonpublic schools under SDCL 13-34-16 and 13-34-16.1. The trial court upheld the statutes as constitutional under both the federal and state constitutions and issued the writ. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, holding that the statutes violate Article VI, § 3 and Article VIII, § 16 of the South Dakota Constitution. The court reasoned that these state provisions are more restrictive than the federal Establishment Clause, as interpreted in prior decisions such as Synod of Dakota v. State, and that the framers intended independent limitations on aid to sectarian institutions that the statutes could not satisfy.

religious liberty

The case involved an appellant charged with murder but convicted of first-degree manslaughter in the death of a woman, where evidence included autopsy results showing asphyxiation and a foreign object inserted in the victim's body, along with hair samples compared by the FBI. The appellant challenged the foundation for admitting physical exhibits, the sufficiency of evidence to support the verdict under jury instructions defining manslaughter in a cruel and unusual manner, and the failure to suppress his admissions to police officers. The court found the chain of custody for the exhibits adequate and upheld their admission. On the statements, it analyzed Miranda and right-to-counsel issues, noting an attorney had been assigned for a separate charge, and remanded for further findings on suppression under precedents like Williams v. Brewer while applying a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for voluntariness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a post-conviction relief proceeding in which petitioner Bedie Thundershield, originally charged with murder and later convicted on a guilty plea to second-degree manslaughter, sought to set aside the conviction. Petitioner claimed that statements made to Bureau of Indian Affairs officers may have been obtained in violation of Miranda rights, that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary, and that his waiver of extradition from North Dakota was invalid. The trial court denied relief based on findings that petitioner's testimony failed to establish his claims and that his credibility was impeached. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, applying the rule that a voluntary guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects in prior proceedings and concluding after review of the record that the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's minimal findings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a condemnation action by Nebraska Electric Generation and Transmission Cooperative against landowners William and Sarah Walkling to acquire a 100-foot easement for a 115 KV transmission line crossing seven quarters of their farmland in South Dakota, with the utility placing multiple pole structures on the property. The jury awarded the Walklings $57,000 in compensation, and the cooperative appealed on grounds including excessive damages influenced by passion or prejudice, improper admission of evidence regarding planned irrigation uses, and insufficient foundation for valuation testimony. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the cooperative failed to demonstrate passion or prejudice in the verdict and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the property's highest and best use, including adaptability for center-pivot irrigation systems. The court emphasized that fair market value determinations properly consider reasonably probable future uses supported by the evidence, consistent with prior rulings on similar condemnation proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved condemnation proceedings by an electric cooperative to acquire a 100-foot-wide easement across approximately 1,800 acres of ranch land in South Dakota for constructing a 115 kV transmission line with multiple pole structures. Separate actions were filed against father-and-son owners who held title to portions of the land individually, but the cases were consolidated and the jury awarded a lump-sum $35,000 verdict treating the property as a single affected unit. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the lack of unified ownership required either separate trials or separate verdicts, and that the jury instruction on damages to the entire ranch unit was erroneous because it assumed joint ownership without supporting evidence. The court also noted unresolved questions about applying the unit rule of severance damages to perpetual easements that do not involve fee title or physical severance by fencing.

propertyprocedure

The case was a condemnation proceeding in which Nebraska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative sought a 100-foot easement across land owned by Lawrence and Velma Markus in Todd County for a 115 KV transmission line, resulting in the taking of 13.31 acres. A jury awarded the landowners $35,000 in compensation for the easement and consequential damages to the remainder of their property, and the cooperative appealed. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the award, rejecting claims of error in jury selection from the Tripp County panel, the admissibility of juror affidavits regarding deliberations, the unit-rule instruction, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. The court reasoned that the challenge to the jury panel was not properly grounded under statute, affidavits could not impeach the verdict, and no prejudice or irregularity deprived the appellant of a substantial right.

propertyprocedure

In Rock v. Rock, the wife was granted a divorce on grounds of extreme mental cruelty and awarded custody of the parties' minor child, child support, a substantial share of the marital property including rights to real estate to be sold, and attorney's fees. The husband, who filed a counterclaim but repeatedly failed to appear at hearings or comply with court orders, appealed the property division and fee award after being held in contempt (an issue the court deemed moot after he returned the child). The court affirmed, reasoning that the husband's documented high income, extreme frugality at the family's expense, and likely future nonpayment of support justified the property allocation to provide security for the wife and child given her limited earning capacity, while the fee award reflected the litigation's complexity and the husband's obstructive conduct. The opinion notes that the husband waived most other issues on appeal.

family lawproperty

The case involved the City of Sioux Falls seeking a declaratory judgment that SDCL 9-14A, a 1971 law providing for binding arbitration of labor disputes involving full-time municipal firefighters and police, was unconstitutional. After a wage dispute, the firefighters invoked the arbitration process, prompting the city to refuse participation and challenge the statute; the trial court struck down only the binding provision (SDCL 9-14A-18) as an unlawful delegation of legislative power under Article III, § 26 of the South Dakota Constitution but upheld the remainder. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the invalidation of the binding provision but reversed as to severability, holding the entire chapter unconstitutional because its non-binding sections were interdependent with the binding arbitration requirement and the legislature would not have enacted them alone. The core reasoning examined the historical purpose of the state constitutional provision, rooted in 1885 convention records and modeled on earlier Pennsylvania language, to conclude it barred the delegation even if the board could be viewed as a public commission.

labor & employment

The case involves plaintiffs who sued defendants for private nuisance, alleging that the defendants' new highway billboard would partially obstruct the view of the plaintiffs' preexisting billboard from vehicles on an arterial highway. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under state nuisance statutes. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that the pleadings sufficiently alleged a cause of action because property owners must use their land in a reasonable manner that does not infringe on others' rights. The court noted that the alleged act could be akin to constructing a spite fence, which had previously been recognized as a valid nuisance claim, and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved homeowners who sued their insurance agency after a flood damaged their mobile home, alleging that an agent negligently misrepresented that their policy provided flood coverage. A jury awarded damages for the loss of the mobile home and its contents, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. The court held that a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation exists under state law, the trial court's jury instructions accurately reflected the law on liability and damages, and evidence supported the jury's findings on the agent's statements and the resulting harm.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this workers' compensation case, the widow of employee Alfred Lemke sought benefits after his death from a coronary occlusion on December 26, 1969, which occurred while he was delivering machinery in icy, windy conditions and engaging in physical labor such as shoveling a stuck truck. The Commissioner of Labor and Management Relations denied the claim in a memorandum decision and adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the employer-insurer that stated the death was not caused by an injury arising out of employment, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, holding that the administrative procedure act (SDCL 1-26) applies to such proceedings and that the adopted findings violated SDCL 1-26-25 by lacking a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting them.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing a car dealer and Chrysler Corporation for breach of an installment contract to purchase an automobile and for breach of implied or express warranties after the vehicle was repossessed, seeking actual and exemplary damages. Default was entered against Chrysler only when it failed to answer within 30 days of service, and the trial court denied Chrysler's subsequent motion to set aside the default and judgment. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, determining that the motion should be treated as one to enlarge time to answer before judgment entry and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant relief under the rules governing defaults. The court reasoned that counsel's delay was excusable because necessary information from the client's general counsel arrived only on the 30th day after service, the defendant promptly filed an answer and motion thereafter, and terms could be imposed to compensate plaintiffs. The case was remanded with instructions to permit the answer upon payment of $200 in terms.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a will contest in which sisters-in-law of the deceased challenged the admission to probate of her 1973 will (which left the estate to her nephews) on grounds of the testatrix's lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, seeking instead to have an earlier 1971 will admitted. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district county court's decision admitting the 1973 will and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the proponents failed to properly establish the testatrix's competency, as their attorney improperly testified on that issue and a physician's deposition was given undue weight without proper foundation or live testimony. The court further reasoned that the trial court had erroneously excluded relevant evidence bearing on undue influence, including statements by the drafting attorney and circumstances involving a vehicle transfer, and that a confidential relationship required further examination on retrial.

propertyprocedurefamily law

This case involved a dispute between Walkon Carpet Corporation and its co-founder W.P. Larson on one side and former co-shareholder and employee Paul Klapprodt on the other, arising from the incorporation of Klapprodt's carpet business. The plaintiffs sought recovery on a promissory note, the value of a van contributed to the corporation, and other misappropriated property, while Klapprodt counterclaimed for unpaid wages with double damages, assumed debts, and damages for slander. The trial court awarded the corporation recovery on the note (reduced for partial failure of consideration) and the van's value, plus nominal damages to Klapprodt on his wage and slander claims without double or punitive damages. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous under SDCL 15-6-52(a) given the conflicting evidence on the parties' contributions, the circumstances of Klapprodt's discharge, and the factors mitigating slander damages.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability