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

This case involves appeals by the city and county from a circuit court decision that reduced property tax assessments for certain Rapid City taxpayers after local equalization boards denied relief. The taxpayers had presented evidence showing their properties' true and full value in money was below the assessed amounts derived from a Jacobs Company appraisal (later reduced to 37% by the assessor), while the city and county offered no contrary evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that state law requires assessments at true and full value in money without arbitrary percentage reductions, that the Jacobs valuations lacked probative value due to unproven methodologies and lack of assessor inspection, and that no showing of gross inequality or nonuniformity justified further adjustments. The court directed reductions only to the true values established by the taxpayers' evidence where lower than the assessor's figures.

taxesproperty

The case involved a dispute over the dissolution of a farming venture and an accounting between plaintiff Weaver and defendant Herbert Bauer regarding whether Bauer had the right to farm Weaver's land from November 1954 to November 1955 under an alleged oral lease. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, finding no valid lease, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the August 1954 conversation between the parties created only a conditional agreement to lease, dependent on settling accounts, making payments under a machinery mortgage, and executing a written contract, none of which occurred. It further held that Bauer's farming activities did not support an estoppel claim because he was aware the lease was contingent on those unmet conditions, though he was compensated for the value of his work and expenses.

property

This case involved a dispute over a farm in Turner County, South Dakota, where the administrator of Peter Krager's estate sought to establish that defendant Mabel Waage (Krager's daughter) held record title only as trustee for her father. The trial court found that Krager had arranged for Waage to purchase the property from the Federal Land Bank in her name with the understanding that he remained the beneficial owner, and it ordered Waage to convey the property to the estate; the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court upheld the key finding based on evidence that Krager made all payments (including extras beyond the contract), operated and lived on the farm as owner until his death, and that the purchase was structured this way because Krager could not buy it himself due to his circumstances. It concluded that these facts, combined with the tacit understanding among the parties, established a trust by operation of law without needing an express written agreement.

propertyfamily law

The case involved a dispute among three sisters over the proceeds from the sale of a Sioux Falls residence that had been held in joint tenancy by the plaintiff and her deceased mother. The mother had advanced most of the purchase money for an earlier property, and after her death the plaintiff, acting as executrix, filed documents in probate court acknowledging that the estate held a $5,750 claim against her that was to be divided equally among the three sisters upon sale of the property. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's action to quiet title to the proceeds, and the Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the plaintiff's representations and agreement in the probate proceedings, which the county court had relied upon in its final decree, estopped her from later denying the defendants' interest in the funds.

property

This case involved a wife's action for divorce on grounds of extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance due to her husband's excessive drinking, with the husband cross-complaining for divorce. The trial court denied divorce to both parties, finding insufficient evidence, but the wife appealed. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the great weight of the evidence demonstrated the husband's intemperance inflicted great mental anguish on the wife, constituting a statutory ground for divorce under definitions of extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance. The court found no misconduct by the wife that would bar relief.

family law

This case involved a challenge to a referendum petition filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State to submit a 1955 law to a popular vote, where a large number of the 17,100 signatures lacked the signers' place of residence (though they included post office address, business, and date). The trial court ruled the petition insufficient under SDC 55.0402, which requires signers to add their place of residence along with other details. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory requirement is a reasonable exercise of the legislature's authority under Article III, § 1 of the state constitution to implement the initiative and referendum process. The court reasoned that listing both residence and post office address provides essential information to verify qualified electors and prevent fraud, that the requirement is neither difficult nor burdensome (as shown by compliant petitions and other states' laws), and that it does not impermissibly impede the constitutional right to referendum.

elections

The case concerned a dispute over an airplane that plaintiff Kindley claimed to have purchased from defendant Williams under a combined written lease and oral agreement for $8,500 plus monthly payments, while Williams repossessed the plane after Kindley missed a payment. Kindley sued for conversion, the jury awarded damages, and the trial court also dismissed Williams's counterclaim after a pre-trial conference. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, ruling that the pre-trial record was too confused regarding stipulations, admissions, and the dismissal of the counterclaim to permit review, that no proper order was entered as required by statute, and that a new pre-trial should be held if the case is retried.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute among ten of the eleven children of George Weitzel over real property he owned at his death in 1947, after he had recorded a deed naming two of them as grantees. The plaintiffs sought to impose a constructive trust on the land, determine ownership interests among the heirs, and obtain a court-ordered sale with division of proceeds because physical partition was not feasible. The trial court found that the defendants held the property in trust for all parties in specified fractional shares and ordered a sale. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, ruling the judgment void because the absent eleventh heir was an indispensable party whose apparent interest as a cotenant required joinder under the state's partition statutes, as any decree would affect his rights and could not bind him or the other parties without his presence.

propertyprocedure

The case involved physicians from the Huron Clinic suing Sanborn County and its sheriff for the cost of extensive medical care provided to prisoner Ted Cooper after he became seriously ill while temporarily permitted to leave jail to prepare his home. The trial court found neither the sheriff nor the county liable, and the Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed. The court held that the sheriff's statutory duty to provide medical necessaries applies only when a prisoner remains in custody, and here Cooper was not in custody because the sheriff had allowed him to go at large without any clear act of retaking him. The sheriff's later visits to check on Cooper were consistent with monitoring rather than reasserting control, so no liability attached under the rule from Bartron Clinic v. Kallemeyn.

criminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved a school district suing the parents of a 16-year-old student for damages to school property caused by the son's vandalism at midnight. The trial court entered judgment against the parents based on a statute making parents liable for school property damage upon a teacher's complaint to the board. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute's language requiring a teacher's complaint indicated it applied only to acts under the teacher's supervision, not to after-hours incidents, so the common law rule of no parental liability for children's torts applied.

torts & liabilityfamily lawproperty

The case involved whether United States Savings Bonds held jointly by the deceased and another person were subject to South Dakota inheritance tax at their full value or only half their value. The state appealed a lower court ruling that applied a 1953 statutory amendment to tax the bonds at half value. The court determined that the 1953 amendment addressed only joint tenancies and did not apply here, since the bonds created no joint tenancy interest for the co-owner prior to death and instead involved a transfer taking effect at death under an earlier statute. Relying on its prior decision in In re Rummel's Estate, the court concluded the full value was taxable and reversed the lower court's judgment.

taxesproperty

This case concerns an appeal by a garnishee defendant from a municipal court order denying permission to file a late affidavit denying liability in a garnishment proceeding, after the ten-day statutory deadline under SDC 33.2803 had passed. The South Dakota Supreme Court first addressed whether the appeal was properly before it as an intermediate order and then reviewed the conflicting affidavits to determine the facts, including that the defendant had been served on February 25, 1955, received telephone advice from plaintiff's counsel in early April to make a disclosure, yet took no action until April 20. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under SDC 33.2802 and SDC 33.0108 in refusing relief because the defendant's neglect was not excusable, particularly after the April conversations, and therefore affirmed the order.

procedure

In State v. Crofutt, the defendant was convicted of first-degree rape accomplished by force overcoming resistance. The trial court refused the defendant's requested jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that assault with intent to commit rape is necessarily included in a charge of rape and that the evidence could reasonably support a jury finding that penetration had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the grandmother's interruption during the incident and the doctor's inconclusive testimony about the victim's injuries could leave reasonable doubt on whether the act was completed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a two-year lease and joint farming/livestock agreement in Gregory County, under which the plaintiff landowner and defendant operator each supplied animals, shared proceeds equally, and the defendant handled labor and machinery; the plaintiff sought cancellation after personal arguments arose over issues such as house swaps, equipment storage in a reserved shop, moving sows, and pasture changes. The trial court canceled the lease and dissolved the relationship, but the appellate court reversed that judgment. The court reasoned that the business had been financially successful with no fraud or dishonesty, the disputes were minor and mutual, the plaintiff retained input on operations, and equity does not dissolve a prosperous going concern over trivial frictions when the agreement expires by its own terms in March 1956.

propertybusiness & regulatory