Robert A. Miller

In Murray v. Mansheim, two drivers involved in a 2003 car accident each sustained injuries, and Murray filed a timely personal injury lawsuit against Mansheim just before the three-year statute of limitations expired under South Dakota law. Mansheim responded with an answer and compulsory counterclaim seeking damages after the limitations period had run, prompting Murray to move for summary judgment on timeliness grounds. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the counterclaim, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a compulsory counterclaim for affirmative relief must be brought within the statute of limitations and is not tolled or revived by the original complaint. The court reasoned that the plain language of SDCL 15-2-14(3) and related provisions governs commencement of actions, with no exception for compulsory counterclaims, and distinguished them from defenses that may relate back under the rules of civil procedure.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Miranda, the defendant was charged with third-degree burglary after police found him inside a bar in Pierre, South Dakota, after closing time; he had concealed himself, removed hinge pins from a door, and caused other disturbances inside the premises, though he had initially been a patron earlier that evening. Miranda moved to dismiss the burglary charge, arguing that his prior presence as a customer meant he was privileged or licensed to enter under SDCL 22-32-8, and he also challenged the admission of evidence from his earlier burglary conviction. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the other-acts evidence, leading to Miranda's conviction on all counts. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that remaining in the building without permission after closing constituted an unauthorized entry for burglary purposes and that the prior conviction was relevant to intent and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice after proper balancing under Rule 404(b).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Denice Moore's petition to modify and increase the alimony she receives from her ex-husband John Moore after their 2003 divorce, where the original agreement provided for $100 monthly payments until her death, remarriage, or age 65. The circuit court granted the modification, increasing alimony to $1,500 per month and awarding costs, citing changes including Denice's worsening Multiple Sclerosis. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that Denice had not sufficiently proven her increased needs or John's present earning capacity. The court held that it was legal error to impute John's new wife's substantial income as evidence of his ability to pay, and noted unresolved issues such as Denice's cohabitation with another individual providing financial support.

family law

This case involves disputes between Cheryl Jacobson and Kevin Leisinger stemming from a prior judgment in which Leisinger rejected a reduced punitive damages award of $25,000 and failed to retry the case within the required time, leading to forfeiture of the original $120,000 award. Jacobson successfully pursued a conversion action to recover the funds after Leisinger refused to return them, and she later sought attorney fees for the related proceedings, which the circuit court denied. Leisinger separately filed a defamation claim against Jacobson based on statements made to police and a victims' compensation program, but the court dismissed it as barred by the statute of limitations since the suit was filed more than two years after he had constructive knowledge of the statements. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the denial of attorney fees while affirming the dismissal of the defamation claim, primarily on timeliness grounds.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a quiet title action brought by Ronald J. Holecek against Robert T. Sundby and Genae M. Warrington over a strip of land in Pennington County, South Dakota. Holecek claimed a reversionary interest based on a 1959 quitclaim deed from his grandfather to the City of Rapid City that included a condition requiring the property to revert if not used for a public street or utility right of way; the City later conveyed the land while reserving a utility easement. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding Holecek lacked standing and ruling against him on other grounds. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding that the City's ongoing reservation and use of the utility easement prevented any reversion and that summary judgment was proper on that issue.

propertyprocedure

North Star Mutual Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Glenn Rasmussen seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend or indemnify him under a personal liability umbrella policy for claims involving his Crownline boat. The trial court granted summary judgment to North Star, concluding there was no coverage under the policy. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that insurance agent Mary Henkel acted as Rasmussen's agent rather than North Star's when procuring coverage, because she was not an exclusive agent for North Star, lacked authority to bind it to an umbrella policy, and had discretion to place coverage with multiple insurers. The court reasoned that any failure by Henkel to add the boat to the North Star umbrella policy or obtain alternative coverage could not be imputed to North Star. The decision rested on undisputed facts about the parties' relationship and practices.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Anderson v. City of Tea, Deb Anderson and other residents circulated referendum petitions to submit a city resolution requiring sidewalk construction to a public vote, but the city finance officer rejected the petitions for failing to meet statutory formatting rules. Anderson sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel an election, which was denied on the grounds that the petitions were not self-contained as required by law. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that state statutes and regulations mandate that each sheet of a multi-page petition must include both a heading and a verification block. The court reasoned that the legislature's explicit requirements, read together with rules from the State Board of Elections, prioritize the integrity of signature verification over liberal construction of petition rules. The multi-page petitions here, which placed the heading only on initial pages and lacked verifications on signature pages, therefore did not conform to the law.

electionsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether attorneys-in-fact under a power of attorney could engage in self-dealing by changing payable-on-death beneficiaries on bank accounts to themselves. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on claims of breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that an attorney-in-fact may not self-deal unless the power of attorney expressly authorizes it in clear and unmistakable language, and the document presented did not provide such authorization, nor did extrinsic evidence suffice to create a factual issue.

property

The case involved a challenge to the will of Kenneth Duebendorfer, which named Randy and Kathy Moller as primary beneficiaries after his death in 2003. Several relatives and friends petitioned to contest the will on grounds of undue influence, alleging the Mollers had increased contact and influence after Duebendorfer's sister died, leading to changes in his relationships and estate plans. A jury found the will was the product of undue influence and denied it probate. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the evidence satisfied the elements of undue influence as a matter of law, including under a confidential relationship theory, and that any errors in jury instructions on burdens of proof were not prejudicial.

family lawprocedure

John Gilchrist sued his employer Trail King Industries for bad faith, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after a 1994 workplace injury led to disputes over workers' compensation benefits, including medical treatment and return-to-work decisions involving a third-party rehabilitation firm. A jury found for Trail King, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The court reasoned that the trial judge improperly excluded relevant evidence of the rehabilitation firm's actions and knowledge, which supported Gilchrist's bad faith theory and whose probative value outweighed prejudice, and noted that the complaint could be amended to include post-1995 events.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

Huron Center sued Henry Carlson Co. and Durrant Group for breach of contract over defective design and substandard construction of a hotel completed in 1987, with exterior panel deterioration beginning in the early 1990s and the suit filed in 1997. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the six-year statute of limitations had expired, and the trial court granted the motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding that the time of accrual of the cause of action raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding when Huron Center should have known of the alleged breach, making summary judgment improper.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a juvenile detainee, Nicholas Hancock, who developed appendicitis while held at a county-operated juvenile services center; he alleged that nurses contracted to provide care negligently failed to monitor his condition or follow medical protocols, resulting in a ruptured appendix and additional surgeries. Hancock sued the center, its administrator, the nursing provider, and individual nurses for negligence, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants under state statutes granting immunity for failure to provide sufficient services or programs in a correctional facility. On appeal, after the nursing defendants were released from the case, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutes did not violate the state constitution's open courts provision because that clause does not eliminate sovereign immunity and the immunity statutes are constitutional. The court also noted that equal protection claims were not properly raised against the remaining governmental defendants.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Homestake Mining Company's attempt to obtain reimbursement from the South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund for workers' compensation claims related to three employees. Homestake filed claims prematurely in 1999 before any final adjudication or settlement, leading to dismissal by the Division of Insurance under the then-existing 90-day statute of limitations in SDCL 62-4-34.1; after the claims were later resolved, Homestake did not refile timely. The company argued that its rights had vested before the fund's repeal and that later legislative amendments should revive the claims, but the circuit court ultimately ruled against it on timeliness grounds despite initially finding constitutional issues with vested rights. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the original limitations period applied and subsequent amendments could not revive expired claims.

labor & employmentprocedure

Kwongyuen Hangkee sued Starr Fireworks in Hong Kong court for nonpayment on fireworks shipments and obtained a money judgment based largely on affidavits after its key witness died. Starr appealed the South Dakota circuit court's order recognizing and enforcing the foreign judgment in the state. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, applying the common-law doctrine of comity and finding that the Hong Kong tribunal had jurisdiction, the judgment was not procured by fraud, the Hong Kong legal system afforded due process and impartial justice, and enforcement would not violate South Dakota public policy.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Walnut Street Village, a ten-unit congregate living facility for elderly residents built and operated by Freeman Community Hospital (a nonprofit 501(c)(3) entity), qualified for property tax exemption under SDCL 10-4-9.3 as health-care-related congregate housing. Hutchinson County denied the exemption, and the circuit court affirmed, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed. The majority held that the facility satisfied the statute because it was operated by a licensed health-care facility, provided residential units with emergency nurse access via speed-dial phones, offered breakfast plus access to additional meals, and admitted residents consistent with capacity; the Court interpreted the statutory requirements for “ability to provide health care” and “balanced nutrition program” as met through services made available by the parent hospital. The opinion construed the tax-exemption statute according to its plain language while noting the general rule that exemptions are strictly applied.

taxespropertyhealthcare

The case involved Chad Meier, injured in a car accident caused by Anthony McCord's negligence, who settled with McCord's liability insurer for the $25,000 policy limits and released McCord from further liability while also notifying his own insurer, Western National, of an intent to seek underinsured motorist benefits. After Western National denied additional coverage, Meier obtained a $125,000 default judgment against McCord without providing the insurer notice of the filed lawsuit or the default motion. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that releasing the tortfeasor does not preclude a claim for underinsured motorist benefits under state law, and it reversed the trial court's refusal to set aside the default judgment. The court reasoned that Western National had made an informal appearance entitling it to notice, its failure to answer constituted excusable neglect given the lack of filing notice, and the damages award lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Bonde v. Boland, Crystal Bonde brought an action under South Dakota law seeking ongoing child support and arrearages from Martin Boland for their child born out of wedlock in 1994. The referee recommended awarding both current support and arrearages from birth, but the circuit court rejected the recommendation and barred recovery of arrearages on the equitable grounds of laches and estoppel. The Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed, concluding after de novo review that the circuit court's findings were clearly erroneous and that the elements of laches and estoppel had not been established by clear and convincing evidence. The court held that the five-year delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances and remanded for further proceedings on the arrearages claim.

family law

In Pettry v. Rapid City Area School District, the plaintiff sued the school district and its maintenance workers for negligence after she slipped and fell on snow-packed and icy ground in the school's graveled playground area while walking to her car after attending her son's basketball game. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of assumption of the risk. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that whether the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk presented a genuine issue of material fact for the jury. The court reasoned that, under the three-prong test for assumption of the risk, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff showed she faced a choice between parking in a dark, icy street a block or more away or parking closer in the icy playground, making it debatable whether she had a reasonable alternative course of conduct.

torts & liability

In State v. Machmuller, the defendant was convicted by a magistrate court jury of second-offense DUI after a traffic stop where an officer observed signs of intoxication, field sobriety test failures, and a refusal to submit to a blood test; the circuit court affirmed. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the magistrate abused its discretion by excluding the South Dakota Driver's License Manual (containing a blood alcohol chart) for lack of authentication and by barring a doctor of internal medicine from testifying as an expert on estimated blood alcohol content based on drinks consumed. The court reasoned that the manual is self-authenticating under SDCL 19-17-6, is relevant to the DUI charge and defense, and required no additional foundation beyond its official nature, allowing the expert to rely on it. The opinion emphasizes that the defendant was entitled to present this evidence to challenge the prosecution's case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether the estate of Tasha Davis could recover uninsured motorist benefits from Farm & City Insurance after Davis was fatally shot by Aaron Andrews during a drive-by shooting from his vehicle. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, ruling that the death did not arise out of the "use" of the uninsured motor vehicle as required by the policy and state law. The court reasoned that Andrews' deliberate act of firing the shotgun was an independent act of misconduct not causally connected to the normal transportation use of the vehicle, and thus not covered under the uninsured motorist provision.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawguns