Judith K. Meierhenry

The case involved property owners challenging the City of Pierre's imposition of special assessments to fund replacement of curb, gutter, and driveways as part of a larger street reconstruction project. The owners sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the assessments violated the Fifth Amendment and South Dakota Constitution's takings provisions because they exceeded any actual benefits to the assessed properties. The circuit court ruled for the owners after weighing evidence on benefits and issued an injunction against collection. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the city's evidence failed to show special, quantifiable benefits differing from those to the general community and that the assessments were therefore unconstitutional.

propertycivil rights

In State v. Beck, Stacy Lynn Beck was convicted by a jury of child abuse under SDCL 26-10-1 after a nine-month-old girl sustained a deep vaginal laceration while Beck changed her diaper at a daycare facility; medical experts testified the injury was consistent with abuse, while Beck maintained any contact was accidental. Beck appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove criminal intent, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the trial court's refusal to instruct on the reasonable-force defense, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative errors. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict was sufficient to establish the abuse element beyond a reasonable doubt, that Beck's defense theory did not support a reasonable-force instruction, and that her remaining claims were either meritless or not reviewable on direct appeal.

criminal law

This case involved Jorge Cortez's appeal of a circuit court order requiring him to pay child support for two children, including J.A.W., despite not being the child's biological father. Cortez had signed a 1999 paternity affidavit acknowledging paternity of J.A.W., but later sought to challenge it. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the affidavit created a rebuttable presumption of paternity under SDCL 25-8-52, which could only be contested within sixty days (or three years if fraud or mistake were alleged) under SDCL 25-8-59. Cortez's challenge, brought years later without such claims, was therefore untimely, and the court found prior precedent like Crouse v. Crouse inapplicable because it did not involve the statutory presumption.

family law

The case concerned a grievance filed by the Spearfish Education Association against the Spearfish School District after the District implemented its last offer following a collective bargaining impasse for the 2006-07 school year but unilaterally chose not to adjust the salaries of seven newly hired teachers downward to match the new schedule, citing their existing individual contracts based on the prior year's schedule. The Department of Labor found this action grievable under SDCL 3-18-1.1 as a violation or inequitable application of the implemented agreement, but the circuit court reversed that determination. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and remanded, holding that the statutory process for implementing a last offer after impasse requires uniform application to all members of the bargaining unit and that individual contracts cannot override this without constituting a grievance. The majority reasoned that allowing selective non-application would undermine the collective bargaining framework and that remedies could be addressed without affecting non-parties directly. A dissent argued no grievance occurred because the action preserved rather than violated the agreement's terms.

labor & employment

Lyn Shroyer filed a petition for a protection order against Lance Fanning on behalf of their four-year-old daughter, alleging sexual abuse based on statements the child made to her. After a hearing where the circuit court admitted Shroyer's testimony about the child's out-of-court statements over Fanning's hearsay objections and granted an eighteen-month protection order, Fanning appealed. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred by admitting the hearsay without making required findings under SDCL 19-16-39 on the statements' reliability and notice to the opposing party. The court further noted that the circuit court failed to make sufficient findings to support a finding of domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The matter was returned for a new hearing.

family lawprocedure

In this case, Gary Podzimek was charged with grand theft by deception under SDCL 22-30A-3 after defaulting on a business loan from Community Bank of Avon, which held a security interest in vehicles from his inventory; some vehicles listed in a 2005 inventory could not be located when the bank later levied on his assets. The circuit court denied Podzimek's motions for a directed verdict claiming the State failed to prove he took property of another, and a jury convicted him. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed on appeal, holding that the evidence was insufficient because the vehicles were Podzimek's own property rather than property of another as required by the theft statute, even though they served as collateral for the loan.

criminal lawproperty