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

The case involved an optometrist with 30 years of practice in South Dakota who was cited by the State Board of Examiners in Optometry for unprofessional conduct based on his advertising methods, which violated the Board's rules limiting ads to basic professional cards in newspapers. After a hearing, the Board revoked his certificate of registration, a decision affirmed by the circuit court. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the revocation, finding that statutes like SDC Supp. 27.0703 and 27.0707 authorized the Board to regulate advertising mediums and that such rules were a valid exercise of police power to protect professional standards, comparable to restrictions on physicians and dentists. The court rejected claims that the rules unconstitutionally restricted the right to practice or eliminated itinerant optometrists, noting they applied uniformly and had a reasonable basis even if restrictive.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In Davies v. Toms, the circuit court set aside a deed conveying real estate from a deceased grantor to her brother and sister (the appellants), which would have diverted the property from her estate and will; the will instead divided the land between the appellants and a group consisting of the deceased husband's siblings and their children. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the deed resulted from the appellants' undue influence. The court reasoned that the grantor, who was elderly and ill, had a confidential relationship with the appellants giving them opportunity to influence her, that the deed contradicted the will's balanced distribution and enriched the appellants disproportionately, and that the appellants' evasive testimony supported a finding of improper motive and undue influence.

propertyfamily law

The case involved the conviction of the defendant in a South Dakota circuit court for second-degree kidnapping, resulting in a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the charging information for omitting any allegation of purpose such as ransom or reward, certain jury instructions on individual juror responsibility, and the adequacy of the evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the state kidnapping statute, modeled on the federal Lindbergh Law and covering restraint for ransom, reward, or otherwise, does not require an allegation or proof of any specific purpose. The court also determined that the given jury instructions adequately covered the substance of the requested instruction on jurors' personal obligations, and that evidence of unlawful restraint for any inducing purpose was sufficient to support the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a paternity action under South Dakota law (SDC 37.21) where a jury found the appellant to be the father of the respondent's child and entered a support judgment against him. The appellant appealed the judgment and the denial of a new trial, citing alleged errors including counsel conduct during trial, irregularities in polling the jury, admission of a letter written by the appellant, a question on cross-examination about offering money for an abortion, and the display of the child to the jury for possible resemblance. The court affirmed the circuit court's rulings, concluding that several claimed errors were waived by failure to object at trial, were harmless, or fell within the trial judge's discretion, and that exhibiting the child was permissible evidence of paternity.

family lawprocedure

In this case, a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment in 1950 after pleading guilty to murder in Brookings County sought a writ of habeas corpus in 1952, claiming he had been denied his constitutional right to competent counsel under the U.S. and South Dakota constitutions, was not advised of rights such as a jury trial or subpoenaing witnesses, and had not validly waived those rights, rendering the sentencing court without jurisdiction. The circuit court of Minnehaha County held a hearing, denied the application, and quashed the writ. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record showed the defendant had been represented by counsel, had affirmatively acknowledged being informed of his rights in open court, and failed to meet his burden of proving any denial of due process or effective assistance, as claims of coercion, inexperience of counsel, or emotional distress were not supported by evidence sufficient to contradict the original proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Reitz v. Ampro Royalty Trust, forty-six plaintiffs filed two actions to quiet title to their farm and ranch lands by invalidating mineral deeds that transferred 75% of the gas, oil, and mineral rights to defendant Ampro Royalty Trust, alleging the deeds were obtained through fraud. The trial court found fraud and ruled the deeds voidable. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiffs own their lands in fee simple free of Ampro's claims. The court reasoned that Ampro's agents made false representations about existing buyers for the royalty interests, future payments equal to land value, and pooling of rights, which were made without intent to perform, involved superior knowledge by the agents, and were blended with misrepresentations of fact, inducing the plaintiffs' reliance.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a landowner who sued Clay County after a road reconstruction project caused a ditch to discharge surface water and silt onto his property, resulting in flooding and damage in 1951. The circuit court issued an injunction barring the county from continuing the discharge and awarded the plaintiff $300 in damages. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the county remained responsible for the highway despite federal aid funding and that the county's actions constituted a taking or damaging of private property for public use without just compensation under the state constitution. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of duty, insufficient evidence, prescriptive rights, and limitations on remedies, noting that the claim was not based on negligence but on constitutional protections against uncompensated takings.

property

In Blow v. Lottman, a mother sued to regain custody of her two young daughters from their paternal grandmother after voluntarily placing them with her following the father's death, only for the grandmother to refuse return years later on grounds of abandonment and unfitness. The trial court awarded custody to the grandmother based on findings that it served the children's best interests and some evidentiary details about the mother's conduct and remarriage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a parent's preferred legal right to custody under common law and South Dakota statutes can only be overridden upon a clear showing of gross misconduct or unfitness, and that the trial court failed to make the required finding on the ultimate fact of the mother's unfitness. Instead, findings focused on the children's best interests were insufficient without first disqualifying the parent, as custody cannot be denied to a fit parent merely because another party might provide better care.

family law

The case was a negligence action arising from a nighttime automobile collision on a South Dakota gravel road, in which the plaintiff's car struck the rear of the defendants' unlit, stopped truck. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff and a rehearing, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reaffirmed the judgment, ruling that the evidence supported a finding that the plaintiff's negligence was slight and the defendants' gross under the state's comparative negligence law, so the plaintiff's claim was not barred. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was entitled to assume others would not violate traffic laws by leaving an unlit vehicle in the roadway and that the facts allowed the jury to weigh the relative degrees of fault rather than requiring a directed verdict for the defendants. It also clarified procedural rules that an unobjected-to jury instruction becomes the law of the case and that a denied motion for directed verdict does not preserve challenges to instructions on appeal.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ownership of land where the plaintiff sought to quiet title to a half interest, claiming he and the decedent had purchased it jointly as partners and that he had paid his share of the purchase price, despite the decedent holding full legal title. The defendants contended that the land was purchased solely by the decedent for his own benefit. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that payment had been made and evidenced by a settlement between the parties. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff's evidence of payment did not meet the required standard of being clear, satisfactory, and convincing, particularly because the settlement documentation did not reference the disputed land and other testimony was insufficient.

propertyprocedure

In Larson v. Hurd, the plaintiff leased a building, equipment, and fixtures to the defendant for operating a restaurant and agreed to sell certain on-hand merchandise as part of the transaction. When the defendant failed to pay rent, the plaintiff sued, and the defendant raised a defense that the bulk sale of merchandise without complying with SDC 54.03 rendered the lease provisions unenforceable. The trial court rejected all defenses and entered judgment for the plaintiff, which the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that noncompliance with the bulk sales law did not invalidate the lease, reasoning that the merchandise sale was incidental to the lease and that such noncompliance does not render the sale or lease unenforceable between the parties.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerned the validity of a promissory note that defendants signed while the husband was jailed on a criminal complaint brought at plaintiff's instigation, with defendants claiming the note lacked consideration and was executed under duress from threats of prosecution related to an insurance agency dispute. The trial court determined that adequate consideration existed and that defendants' consent was not obtained through coercion. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the record contained conflicting testimony but did not provide clear and satisfactory evidence of duress, and that trial court findings on witness credibility and the facts should stand unless clearly preponderated against by the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a wrongful death claim after a driver struck and killed a pedestrian on a rural road. The jury found the defendant driver not liable, and the plaintiff appealed several trial court rulings on evidence and damages. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, ruling that a statute permitting deceased persons' statements in actions involving their estates does not apply to wrongful death suits, that striking allegations of burial expenses was harmless error since there was no liability, and that a statement by the decedent at the accident scene was admissible as spontaneous. The court also held that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances, including an emergency created by the pedestrian's actions.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between two South Dakota counties over responsibility for additional poor relief and medical care provided in 1950 to two elderly women receiving continuous old age assistance. Both women had legal settlement in McCook County when their assistance began in 1936, later moved to Davison County, and remained there; Davison County sought reimbursement from McCook after furnishing extra aid. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed the circuit court's judgment for Davison County. It held that the women's legal settlements had shifted to Davison before the effective date of the 1941 statutory amendments on poor relief, which added provisions preventing settlement changes during receipt of public assistance but did not apply retroactively to alter prior settlements or create liability for McCook County.

healthcare