Boyd Leedom

The case involved a guest passenger suing the automobile owner for personal injuries from an accident in which the car overturned, with the plaintiff required under South Dakota law to prove willful and wanton misconduct rather than ordinary negligence. The defendant appealed from a verdict for the plaintiff, challenging jury instructions and evidentiary rulings on issues including who was driving the car and the scope of the owner's potential liability. The court determined that the instructions erroneously permitted the jury to find liability based on mere negligence or on the willful misconduct of a third-party driver without statutory imputation to the owner, and held that this error required reversal of the judgment.

torts & liability

In Tisher v. Jarrett, plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had dammed a drainage ditch within an organized drainage district, causing water to back up and render their farmland soggy and unusable, and they sought an injunction to remove the obstruction along with a second claim involving a natural waterway. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs were limited to the remedies provided in the drainage district statutes, which allow for maintenance by county commissioners or civil suits by officials but do not authorize injunctions. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the statutory remedies were not speedy, adequate, or complete because they required cooperative action from multiple parties, could involve delay and uncertainty, and provided no direct compensation for individual losses. The court reasoned that injunction is a recognized equitable remedy for interference with water flow that causes ongoing harm not adequately addressed by damages, and the existence of alternative statutory procedures does not bar equitable relief when those procedures fall short.

propertyenvironmentprocedure

In State v. Dove, the defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping under South Dakota law and sentenced to death for luring and sexually assaulting a nine-year-old girl, with the kidnapping and detention occurring only as part of that attack. The court examined the constitutionality of the first-degree kidnapping statute, which upgraded second-degree kidnapping to first degree if the perpetrator also inflicted certain injuries in a manner abhorrent to public morals and common decency, with penalties of life imprisonment or death. The statute was held void for vagueness because its language failed to clearly define the prohibited conduct that would elevate the offense, creating uncertainty about what specific acts or injuries triggered the higher penalty, particularly given the involvement of the death penalty. As a result, the conviction and death sentence were reversed.

criminal law

The case involved three consolidated actions brought by taxpayers of the City of Faith against former city council members who, while in office, sold goods and merchandise to the city and received payment, in violation of state statutes (SDC 45.1507, 45.1508, and related provisions) that prohibit municipal officers from having any interest in such contracts or sales and declare them unlawful, null and void, and a misdemeanor. The trial court entered judgments requiring repayment of the amounts received plus interest and attorney fees; the city intervened to oppose recovery, arguing the transactions were fair, without fraud, and that equity should bar repayment. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the repayment obligation, holding that the explicit statutory prohibitions controlled and could not be overridden by equitable considerations or lack of unfair pricing, as distinguished from prior cases like Bartron v. Codington County, but reversed the award of attorney fees as additional taxable costs because the statutes did not explicitly authorize them beyond ordinary costs. The court remanded for modification of the judgments accordingly.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Willers, a municipal court jury convicted the defendant of violating SDC 44.0347 by permitting his employee to operate a truck on a public highway without a working horn, based on evidence that the horn was inoperable both before and after a collision. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that the horn was defective prior to the accident and lack of proof that he knew of the defect. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the offense is malum prohibitum, so the prosecution need not prove specific intent or actual knowledge, and that the evidence including the blown fuse and post-accident condition sufficiently corroborated the driver's testimony to support the verdict. The court noted that lack of reasonable knowledge could be a defense but that the defendant failed to establish it to the jury's satisfaction.

criminal law

This case concerned a dispute over the estate of Selma C. Erickson, who died intestate, with respondent claiming the entire estate as her surviving husband through a common-law marriage and the next of kin contesting that claim. The county and circuit courts ruled in favor of respondent, finding sufficient evidence of a common-law marriage based on the parties' long cohabitation and reputation as spouses. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence failed to establish the required mutual consent to marriage; instead, the parties' statements showed a plan to deceive others about their relationship rather than a genuine marital agreement. The court noted the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying recognition of a common-law marriage in violation of statutory requirements and directed that the estate pass to the next of kin, with further proceedings on attorney fees.

family lawproperty