Herbert B. Rudolph

In State v. Smith, the defendant was convicted of embezzlement after trial and moved to arrest the judgment, arguing that the information was defective for failing to allege that the stolen property had been entrusted to him as required by the statutory definition. The trial court denied the motion, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that on a post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment, the information must be liberally construed in favor of validity, and the charging document sufficiently designated the offense by naming embezzlement, describing the property and acts of fraudulent appropriation, and citing the embezzlement statute, thereby enabling a person of common understanding to know what was intended. The court further reasoned that the information apprised the defendant of the charges with reasonable certainty and caused no prejudice to his substantial rights under state procedural rules.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by plaintiff Jacobson against defendant Coady for damages from a car collision on a snowy, icy road in South Dakota, where the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the sudden emergency doctrine. The court reasoned that, based on the defendant's testimony that he encountered unexpected ice while driving prudently below the posted speed limit, he was entitled to an instruction explaining that a driver is not negligent if he acts reasonably when confronted with an emergency not caused by his own prior negligence; without it, the jury might have wrongly inferred negligence solely from the fact that the collision occurred on the wrong side of the road. The opinion also addressed but did not resolve a secondary issue regarding the phrasing of voir dire questions about prospective jurors' ties to insurance companies.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the plaintiff held a judgment against defendant Alfred Speck for injuries from a May 1955 car accident and sought to recover from Speck's insurer, Security General Insurance Company, under a liability policy. The trial court found coverage because the accident vehicle was a temporary substitute for Speck's covered 1950 Studebaker, which had broken down. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy's substitute-vehicle provision did not apply. The court reasoned that Speck had abandoned the covered car—leaving it with a dealer after defaulting on payments and stating he was through with it—so it was not merely temporarily withdrawn from use due to breakdown, repair, or servicing, and the accident car was not driven as a substitute within the policy's meaning. The court also noted an alternative policy clause on other automobiles furnished for regular use but observed that the trial court made no finding on that issue.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a workers' compensation claim under South Dakota law after Clarence Bruns died of a heart attack (coronary occlusion) while employed at a grocery store. The Industrial Commissioner denied benefits, finding no sufficient evidence that the employment caused or contributed to the death. The circuit court reversed and awarded compensation, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the denial. The court reasoned that the claimant's evidence, including the doctor's testimony that work events "could have" contributed, was speculative and not conclusive, especially without an autopsy, and that the Commissioner was not bound to accept testimony about added stress or to find causation by a preponderance of the evidence.

labor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff seeking damages from an automobile accident against multiple defendants, with the jury finding Wurnig, Baker, and Scott liable. Wurnig appealed but did not serve notice of the appeal on Baker. The court determined that Baker qualified as an adverse party because reversal of the judgment against Wurnig would eliminate Baker's right to indemnity from Wurnig under Iowa's statute holding vehicle owners liable for consented drivers' negligence. South Dakota law requires service on all adverse parties, so the appeal was dismissed for lack of proper notice.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an original certiorari proceeding challenging the South Dakota State Board of Equalization's 1956 decision to raise the total assessed valuation of property statewide from approximately $1.8 billion to $2.5 billion based on county returns. The relators contended that the Board lacked authority under statutes like SDC 57.0415 and SDC 57.0420 to increase aggregate valuations in this manner and that its actions were arbitrary. The court held that its role was limited to determining whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction, not to review errors in valuation. Examining the statutory history from 1897 onward, the court concluded that the Board is authorized only to equalize county assessments to achieve proportionate value among counties without substantially raising the overall aggregate, and it may not independently reassess property toward true value. Because the massive increase demonstrated that the Board had effectively reassessed rather than equalized, its action was ruled void and a nullity.

taxesproperty