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

The case involved the Michael J. Fitzmaurice South Dakota State Veterans Home seeking to recover $13,113.20 in care costs for veteran Ernest Hammer from the estate of his deceased wife Mildred under SDCL 33-18-16. Ernest's home passed to Mildred via joint tenancy and his life insurance proceeds went directly to her as beneficiary, so he left no probate estate. The circuit court disallowed the claim, ruling that the Home's remedy was instead under SDCL 43-46-2 for claims against joint property, but the six-month filing deadline had expired. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the term "estate" in SDCL 33-18-16 refers to probate property and that the two statutes could be harmonized without conflict, meaning the Home should have pursued the joint-tenancy claim timely. The court reviewed the statutory interpretation issues de novo.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Association and property owners Terry and Ann Anderson over amounts owed under a private access easement agreement granting road access through an adjacent subdivision in exchange for annual general road assessments. The agreement incorporated covenants only for general road assessments and enforcement, but the Association sued for unpaid general assessments covering broader expenses and obtained summary judgment plus foreclosure on the Andersons' lots. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the easement terms limited obligations to road-related costs and that the Association failed to show its assessments covered only roads, creating genuine issues of material fact on the amounts due.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether Karen Hargrave qualified as the surviving spouse of Paul Duval for inheritance purposes under South Dakota law, based on her claim of a common-law marriage formed while the couple spent time in Mexico and Oklahoma. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment recognizing Hargrave as Duval's common-law wife. The court held that South Dakota domiciliaries cannot establish a valid common-law marriage in another jurisdiction unless they fully satisfy that jurisdiction's requirements, which Hargrave failed to do. Mexico treated the relationship as concubinage rather than marriage, and Oklahoma required clear evidence of mutual assent to marry at a specific time, which was absent here. As a result, Hargrave could not inherit as the surviving spouse.

family lawproperty

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Lyle Wiedmann against employer Merillat Industries for permanent total disability benefits stemming from a 1994 work-related injury. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's ruling, holding that Wiedmann was entitled to permanent total disability benefits and certain medical expenses as determined by the Department of Labor. The court reasoned that, based on the procedural history of the prior denial which required participation in a pain management program, Wiedmann's subsequent completion of the program met the statutory requirement of a change in condition under SDCL 62-7-33, allowing review and an award of benefits. It also upheld the DOL's findings on medical expenses after rejecting the employer's expert opinions.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Vincent Fasthorse's convictions for kidnapping, aggravated assault, and rape after he drove the victim A.S. to a cornfield, assaulted her, and raped her twice before she escaped. Fasthorse appealed, claiming insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping and assault convictions, that the jury selection process violated his due process rights, and that limits on cross-examining A.S. about her prior sexual conduct and a drug conviction denied him a fair trial. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed all convictions. It held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to sustain the findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that jury selection did not violate constitutional standards, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination because the excluded evidence lacked established relevance and foundation and any error was not prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Darrell Martin appealing the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles' revocation of his parole after he was terminated from a required rehabilitation facility and sex offender counseling program. Martin had been released on parole following a conviction for possession of child pornography, subject to conditions including residence at Glory House and attendance at counseling; an alleged incident of misconduct led to his termination and return to prison. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision, and the Supreme Court upheld it, concluding that the revocation hearing was held within the required timeframe, the evidence satisfied the "reasonably satisfied" standard for finding a violation, and Martin's procedural claims regarding counsel, cross-examination, and other matters lacked merit.

criminal lawprocedure

The case arose from the sale of a Quality Inn hotel in South Dakota, where buyers Tate and Sarah Schipporeit sued seller Ghazanfar Khan for breach of contract, conversion, and fraudulent misrepresentation after Khan initially refused to close and later allegedly failed to deliver certain inventory, supplies, equipment, and room reservations as specified in the purchase agreement. A jury awarded the buyers compensatory damages on all claims plus punitive damages, but the trial court denied Khan's post-trial motions. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conversion, misrepresentation, and punitive damages awards. The court held that punitive damages are unavailable in a pure contract action and that the buyers failed to prove independent torts separate from the contractual duties, which expressly covered the items at issue.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether Kjerstad Realty was entitled to a 5% sales commission under an exclusive listing agreement after Bootjack Ranch sold its property to a buyer within the 180-day tail period following termination of the agreement. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Kjerstad Realty, awarding the commission plus interest. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial, holding that the written contract controlled over any prior oral statements but that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Kjerstad Realty substantially performed its obligations, such as showing the full property and facilitating the sale. The court emphasized that factual disputes, including the buyer's prior knowledge of the ranch and the realtor's efforts during a meeting, precluded summary judgment.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Hansen v. Hansen, a divorcing couple disputed the valuation of their marital home for property division purposes. The home had been gifted to them jointly by the wife's parents, who retained a life estate interest, and the couple had made substantial improvements. The circuit court valued the couple's interest at the full fair market value of $141,000 without adjusting for the life estate. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that only the remainder interest constituted marital property subject to division and that the circuit court's valuation was clearly erroneous because it ignored competent evidence of the life estate's impact, including an actuarial table from state regulations, while the opposing expert admitted lacking qualifications to value the encumbrance. The case was remanded for a proper valuation of the remainder interest and reconsideration of the overall property division.

family lawproperty

This case involved a tenant's 2003 default judgment against her landlord for claims including wrongful lockout, destruction of personal property, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress, totaling $24,231. The landlord moved to set aside the judgment under rules allowing relief for excusable neglect, but after an initial hearing where the motion was orally granted without a formal order being entered, the case stalled until the landlord renewed the motion years later upon discovering the judgment remained active. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate, holding that the landlord failed to show excusable neglect or pursue the matter diligently, while also modifying the judgment to exclude certain statutory damages and remanding the punitive damages award for further review of supporting factors.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

In this case, homeowners challenged via writ of certiorari the Turner County Board of Adjustment's grant of a conditional use permit allowing a cooperative elevator association to build a large commercial grain storage facility on agriculturally zoned land adjacent to their residential properties. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's denial of the writ, holding that the homeowners were denied due process because one board member had a disqualifying conflict of interest and should not have participated in the decision. The court found that the board member, who had previously served as a county commissioner, had actively negotiated with both parties to resolve the elevator's potential claims against the county arising from an erroneously issued building permit, creating an unacceptable risk of bias in the quasi-judicial permit proceeding. The majority emphasized that impartiality is required for decision-makers in such administrative hearings, and the member's prior involvement crossed the line into advocacy that undermined fairness.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In Piper v. Weber, Briley Piper, who had pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and related charges arising from a 2000 kidnapping and killing, appealed the circuit court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. Piper argued that his waiver of a jury's determination on the death penalty was invalid because it was not knowing and voluntary, and that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the waiver was constitutionally invalid, as the trial judge's on-the-record explanation failed to adequately convey that the jury's decision on sentencing required unanimity and that one juror could effectively choose life imprisonment. Due to the heightened scrutiny applicable to capital sentencing, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding that would afford Piper the option of jury determination, without reaching the ineffective assistance claim.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether school district board members and the South Dakota Coalition of Schools had standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of the state's K-12 public school funding system against the Auditor General, Governor, and Attorney General. The circuit court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing and granted summary judgment to the state officials. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, determining that the school districts possessed standing to seek declaratory relief regarding the constitutional requirements for school funding under article VIII of the state constitution.

proceduretaxes

This case involved a divorce between Amy Anne Haanen and Jeffrey J. Haanen, who had three children and a history of substance abuse, gambling issues, and domestic problems leading to temporary state intervention. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award of joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Amy, applying the best interests of the child standard under SDCL 25-4-45. It reversed the alimony award, holding that the trial court erred by not basing the amount on Amy's demonstrated monthly needs and standard of living rather than income equalization. The court also reversed the child support calculation of $752 per month, directing that any alimony be treated as income to Amy and deducted from Jeffrey's income per SDCL 25-7-6.7, and remanded for reconsideration of both issues.

family law