The case involved B.Y. Development's application to expand its gaming resort in Deadwood's National Historic Landmark District, which the City of Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission denied after finding the project would encroach upon, damage, or destroy specific historic properties under SDCL 1-19B-62 and local ordinances including DCO 17.68.020(11) and 17.68.050. B.Y. appealed to the circuit court, which remanded for identification of affected properties but interpreted the statute without incorporating the city's ordinances. On further appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the enabling statute empowers cities to adopt such ordinances and that the commission's denial relied on those standards, so the circuit court must review the decision using both the statute and the ordinances. The matter was remanded for that examination.
In State v. Fisher, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of first- and third-degree rape and sexual contact with a child based on allegations that he had sexually abused his thirteen-year-old daughter over several years. At trial, the circuit court admitted evidence of the defendant's 1994 conviction for sexual contact with a child, which occurred when he was seventeen and involved his thirteen-year-old stepsister, ruling that it was relevant to show intent, motive, common scheme or plan, and identity. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prior conviction was too remote in time—especially given that the defendant was a juvenile at the time—and insufficiently similar to the current charges to be admissible under SDCL § 404(b). The court further determined that the error was not harmless because the prosecution relied heavily on the prejudicial evidence.
The case involved Joseph Bradley, who was on parole and charged with two counts of first-degree escape under SDCL 22-11A-2(3) and one count of simple assault on a public officer after incidents on October 22 and 30, 2008, in which he fled from parole and law enforcement officers. Bradley moved to sever the charges and for judgment of acquittal, both of which the trial court denied, resulting in convictions on all three counts. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed one escape conviction and the assault conviction but reversed the second escape conviction. The court reasoned that Bradley had submitted to immediate custody on October 22 by complying with a command to place his hands behind his back before fleeing, satisfying the statutory requirement, but had not done so on October 30 when officers attempted a roadblock without prior submission or physical restraint.
This case was a divorce proceeding between Michael and Mildred Lovejoy in which the husband appealed the trial court's rulings on child custody, general and rehabilitative alimony, debt division, and attorney fees, while the wife cross-appealed the attorney fee award. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the awards of primary physical custody to the wife, the division of debts, and the attorney fees. It reversed and remanded the alimony awards because the trial court's findings did not adequately explain the husband's ability to pay, the wife's claimed expenses improperly included children's costs, and the rehabilitative alimony lacked any durational limit.
The case concerned whether the South Dakota Department of Corrections violated House Bill 1271, which authorized acquisition of land for a combined minimum-security and parole facility and required public meetings before purchasing any property with revenue bond proceeds. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a purchase agreement signed by the DOC before the mandated meetings occurred. The circuit court and Supreme Court ruled that the DOC did not violate the statute. The court reasoned that execution of the conditional purchase agreement did not constitute a purchase under the bill, and the required public meetings were held before any use of revenue bonds to close on the property.
This case concerned a 1982 tax lien filed by the South Dakota Department of Revenue against James Farmer for unpaid sales tax; after the Department sued to collect in 1985 but the action was dismissed in 1991 for failure to prosecute, Farmer sought a declaratory judgment in 2006 to release the lien when it appeared on a title search. The circuit court ruled the lien was extinguished under res judicata and awarded attorney fees, but the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the dismissal of the collection suit barred further enforcement of the lien because the Department had a full opportunity to litigate the obligation. However, the Court reversed the fee award, reasoning that SDCL 10-59-34 authorizes fees only for administrative hearings or appeals under chapters 1-26 and 1-26D, not for a collateral declaratory judgment action attacking a lien.