Charles S. Hanson

This case involved Terminal Grain Corporation suing South Dakota farmer Glenn Freeman for damages from his alleged failure to deliver wheat under two 1972 oral contracts, after an earlier Iowa action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Freeman, who represented himself, asserted counterclaims for libel, slander, and malicious prosecution that the trial court dismissed on statute of limitations and summary judgment grounds, while the jury returned a split verdict awarding Terminal Grain $89.80 on one count but finding for Freeman on the other. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed all rulings, concluding that Freeman was not a "merchant" under the UCC so the statute of frauds applied to bar recovery on the undelivered grain, that the completed delivery was enforceable regardless of contract formalities, and that no reversible errors occurred in the pretrial motions, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Marshall, defendant Richard Marshall was convicted of murdering Martin Montileaux after a joint charge with Russell Means, who was acquitted in a separate trial; Marshall appealed on multiple grounds including denial of a change of venue due to pretrial publicity about Native Americans and the American Indian Movement, refusal of jury sequestration and individual voir dire, insufficiency of evidence on premeditation, limits on cross-examination, and rejection of proposed jury instructions on informant testimony and malice aforethought. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the pretrial motions because the publicity was largely factual and not inflammatory, as shown by Means's acquittal and the thorough voir dire process that revealed no biased jurors. The court further ruled that malice aforethought is not an element of murder under state law, which requires only a premeditated design to effect death, and that the evidence supported the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendants convicted of riot where arson was committed, arising from a February 1973 protest at the Custer County Courthouse by American Indian Movement members and others protesting the manslaughter charge filed after the stabbing death of Wesley Bad Heart Bull. The protest escalated into violence, including assaults on officers, property damage, and multiple arson incidents that damaged the courthouse and other buildings. On appeal, the defendants raised issues including trial disruption from spectator misconduct, the handling of jury selection, and the cross-examination of one defendant about prior convictions. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in proceeding with the trial after the disruption, no reversible error in the cross-examination given other admitted felonies, and no merit in the remaining assignments of error.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Brennan v. Brennan, a divorce case, the defendant appealed the portion of the final decree that ordered him to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses. The parties stipulated that the court would determine the fees based on an itemized statement, but the trial court inserted the requested amount of $3,066.07 into the decree ex parte without granting the defendant's request for a hearing on his objections. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the fee award and remanded the matter, reasoning that the stipulation left the fees open for judicial determination but did not waive the defendant's rights to notice and an evidentiary hearing on their necessity and reasonableness, as required by procedural due process under SDCL 15-17-7 and SDCL 25-4-38. The court emphasized that a valid order for attorneys' fees in divorce cases requires compliance with fundamental fairness and proper application with notice.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned George Asimakis's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions on two counts of third-degree burglary and the sentences imposed after a prior guilty plea to grand larceny had been vacated. The court affirmed the denial of the writ. It reasoned that three of the appellant's claims had already been resolved in a prior appeal, that the burglary convictions involved separate offenses from the larceny so that a harsher sentence was permissible under North Carolina v. Pearce, that the Board of Pardons and Paroles had discretion to set the term and was presumed to have credited time served, and that the appellant had not subpoenaed his accomplices who had invoked their right against self-incrimination.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by employee Lloyd Harden against his employer, the South Dakota Credit Union League, and its insurer, alleging that driving a smaller, harder-riding company car aggravated his preexisting back condition and caused a herniated disc requiring surgery. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the award of benefits that had been granted by the Commissioner of Labor and Management Relations and affirmed by the circuit court. The court reasoned that the medical testimony only showed the car "could have" aggravated the condition, which was insufficient to prove a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and that the commissioner's findings were not entitled to deference because he had not personally heard the witnesses testify. The court declined to address the employer's additional arguments on notice and the statute of limitations.

labor & employment

The case involved a farmer, Joe Kubik, who was injured while loading a propane gas tank onto his truck from the defendant's loading dock as a gratuitous favor for the oil company. Kubik sued the company for negligence, claiming the dock was unsafe and the company failed to provide assistance or warnings, and a jury awarded him damages. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that there was no evidence of actionable negligence by the defendant because the dock was reasonably safe and the plaintiff, an experienced handler of such tanks, voluntarily assumed the risks involved by attempting to load it alone from the ground in snowy conditions.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved the constitutionality of South Dakota's abortion statute, SDCL 22-17-1, under which Dr. H. Benjamin Munson was prosecuted. The South Dakota Supreme Court initially upheld the statute in 1972, but after the U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Roe v. Wade, the state court reviewed its prior ruling. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's determination in Roe v. Wade that such abortion laws violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the South Dakota Supreme Court vacated its earlier judgment and directed dismissal of the criminal information against the defendant.

abortioncriminal lawfederal power

The case involved a claim by the administrator of a deceased person's estate against an auto insurance company for the unpaid portion of a wrongful death judgment exceeding the policy limits, alleging bad faith refusal to settle. The trial court awarded the excess amount to the plaintiff, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the insurer failed to give equal consideration to the insured's interests when rejecting settlement offers within policy limits. The court applied the bad faith standard from prior precedent, finding sufficient evidence of the insurer's improper conduct in handling the claim and appeal. It rejected the plaintiff's requests for attorney fees and prejudgment interest.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved a challenge to a conviction for unlawfully distributing a controlled drug under Chapter 229 of the 1970 South Dakota Session Laws. The defendant argued that the law's title violated the state constitution by not adequately expressing its subject matter, which included a comprehensive drug control act with penal provisions, while the title only mentioned establishing a commissioner's office. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the conviction, holding that the title was unconstitutionally restrictive and failed to apprise the public or legislature of the act's full scope, in violation of Article III, Section 21. The court noted that while the defect was cured by later codification, it applied to offenses committed before July 1, 1972.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute between the Belle Fourche Irrigation District and landowner R.A. Smiley over Smiley's right to divert water from the Belle Fourche River for irrigating 207.8 acres of his land. After an initial trial and remand, the trial court granted Smiley a vested appropriative water right with a May 1, 1953 priority date, limited to a maximum diversion of 2.67 cubic feet per second during the irrigation season, subject to domestic uses and senior rights; it also recognized his separate vested domestic use rights. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the state's 1955 water code (SDCL 46-1-1 et seq.) made beneficial use the basis and limit of water rights, converting unused riparian claims into non-vested rights while protecting only those uses actually applied to beneficial purposes by March 1955. The court rejected Smiley's argument that mere riparian ownership conferred an unlimited vested right to divert water for irrigation.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. O'Connor, the defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery after two masked men invaded a family's home, one unmasked during a struggle, and the victims later identified him from mug shots and in court. The defendant appealed, claiming the trial court should have suppressed the in-court identifications because a pretrial photo lineup was unduly suggestive and that a full evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion was required. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the photographic procedure was not impermissibly suggestive given the witnesses' close observations of the unmasked robber, their accurate immediate descriptions, and their separate identifications from a group of photos; it further ruled that the in-court identifications rested on an independent source and that the stipulated facts did not necessitate an evidentiary hearing. The court noted that defense counsel had the opportunity at trial to cross-examine on any potential misidentification issues but did not do so.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a breach of contract claim by John A. Carlson, Inc. against the South Dakota State Highway Commission seeking $84,874 in damages beyond the agreed contract price for producing a gravel stockpile for U.S. Highway 281. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal of its action. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the issues were controlled by its recent decision in G. H. Lindekugel & Sons, Inc. v. South Dakota State Highway Commission, which interpreted SDCL 31-2-34 to 31-2-39 as limited by Sections 8 and 9 of Article XI of the state constitution and rejected the plaintiff's contentions.

business & regulatory

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Northern Improvement Company against the South Dakota State Highway Commission for highway construction work on U.S. Highway 212. The plaintiff sought $379,294 in damages beyond the agreed contract price. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal on appeal. The court relied on its recent decision in G. H. Lindekugel & Sons, Inc. v. South Dakota State Highway Commission, which had interpreted SDCL 31-2-34 to 31-2-39 as limited by Sections 8 and 9 of Article XI of the South Dakota Constitution and rejected similar claims. The issues centered on the scope of those statutes and constitutional provisions regarding the contract dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of obtaining money and property under false pretenses after issuing a $15 check marked 'No Account' to a store. He appealed, arguing errors including the admission of testimony from a parole officer without Miranda warnings, the form of Miranda warnings given by a sheriff, and an in-court identification based on an improper pretrial lineup without counsel. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Miranda warnings were not required from the probation officer because he was not acting as a law enforcement officer and the interrogation was not custodial, that the sheriff's warnings were sufficient despite minor wording differences, and that any error in the lineup identification was harmless because it was cumulative to the defendant's admissible admissions of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners who sued the City of Beresford after their electrical and telephone services were disconnected for refusing to pay mandatory garbage collection fees under a city ordinance. The city had contracted for garbage hauling and billed residents regardless of use, then relied on a separate ordinance allowing disconnection of utility services for delinquent accounts to enforce payment. The trial court awarded the plaintiffs $750 in damages for wrongful termination and dismissed the city's counterclaim for unpaid fees, but the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the garbage fee ordinance was mandatory while the utility disconnection ordinance could not lawfully be used to collect unrelated charges. The court affirmed the damages award on the ground that the disconnection was improper but reversed the dismissal of the counterclaim, ordering the $101.60 in fees to be deducted from the judgment. The decision rested on principles of statutory construction that upheld the city's interpretation of its ordinances while limiting the remedies available for enforcement.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Glick, the defendant appealed his first-degree robbery conviction, arguing that a revolver, ammunition, and currency seized from him during a warrantless search at a private residence should have been excluded from evidence because police failed to provide the duplicate receipt required by SDCL 23-16-1 and because the search lacked probable cause or a warrant. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the receipt statute is directory rather than mandatory, so noncompliance does not render seized evidence inadmissible, and that the defendant waived any Fourth Amendment objection by failing to file a timely pretrial motion to suppress or request a voir dire hearing. The opinion further noted that the evidence of guilt was sufficient despite minor inconsistencies in witness descriptions and that the officers' actions reflected reliable information about the suspect's location.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cundy, the defendant was charged with grand larceny after allegedly taking a calf from a neighboring ranch; the case arose when ranch employees and deputy sheriffs entered the defendant's property without a warrant, observed the calf, marked it, and later seized it under a search warrant after it was transported to another ranch. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the deputies' presence on the curtilage was justified as they were invited onto the premises by the defendant's employee in response to a report of a possible crime, conducted no exploratory search themselves, and merely observed actions by private individuals, so the evidence was not tainted by any unconstitutional conduct.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Munson, a licensed physician was charged under South Dakota's long-standing abortion statute (SDCL 22-17-1) with performing an abortion not necessary to preserve the woman's life. The trial court dismissed the information, finding the law an unconstitutional invasion of privacy rights without a compelling state interest. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, upholding the statute's constitutionality. The court reasoned that the state possesses a legitimate interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus, that the statutory exception is not unconstitutionally vague per precedents like United States v. Vuitch, and that the issue involves policy matters best resolved by the legislature rather than judicial invalidation under Griswold and related cases.

abortioncriminal law

The case involved a lawsuit by Shane Ross, a minor, against Stanley Hanson for injuries sustained when Hanson's shepherd dog bit him in the eye while riding in the back of a pickup truck. The jury awarded Ross $12,500, and Hanson appealed the judgment. The court applied common law principles requiring proof that the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog's dangerous propensities, rather than strict liability which applies only to injuries to animals. It found sufficient evidence of such knowledge based on prior bites to other children and the defendant's admission that he should have gotten rid of the dog, thus affirming the verdict.

torts & liability