The case concerns the State of South Dakota, Charles Mix County, and the City of Wagner's challenge to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' approval of the Yankton Sioux Tribe's application to take 39.9 acres of land into federal trust for housing use under the Indian Reorganization Act. Plaintiffs argued that the agency withheld 23 key documents from them during administrative review, preventing meaningful comment, and raised constitutional claims including non-delegation and equal protection. The court held that the failure to disclose the documents violated due process, rejected the constitutional challenges as foreclosed by precedent, and remanded the matter to the Regional Director for de novo review after disclosure and opportunity for comment. Other procedural and substantive objections were either mooted or insufficient to alter the outcome.
This case involved Charles Mix County challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior's decision to place 39 acres of land into trust for the Yankton Sioux Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. The county sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, raising claims including the unconstitutionality of Section 5 of the Act, due process violations in the review process, and inadequate compliance with environmental review requirements under NEPA. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants after determining that the plaintiff failed to properly support its assertions with citations to the administrative record and that the agency's actions complied with applicable regulations, including preparation of an environmental assessment and categorical exclusion. Precedent from similar cases upheld the Secretary's authority to take land into trust without finding any procedural or constitutional violations.
In this case, Diesel Machinery, Inc. sued multiple Manitowoc entities for terminating a 2005 distributor agreement covering sales and service of Grove and GMK mobile hydraulic cranes in South Dakota, alleging violations of the South Dakota Dealer Protection Act and breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed seeking declaratory judgment and alleging breach by DMI. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, including a motion to dismiss uninvolved defendants that was converted to summary judgment treatment. It granted that motion in part by dismissing The Manitowoc Company, Inc. and Manitowoc Crane Group, finding they were not parties to the agreement, but denied it with respect to other defendants such as Manitowoc Cranes, Inc., National Crane Corporation, and Potain SAS that were identified as parties. The core reasoning was based on the explicit terms of the agreement listing the contracting entities and undisputed facts showing that the dismissed defendants were either holding companies or merely trade names without direct contractual obligations.
This case involved a medical malpractice lawsuit by Robin Bair and his wife against orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert Callahan, alleging negligence in a 2007 spinal fusion surgery using pedicle screws and rods, as well as failure to diagnose and correct misplaced screws. After a jury trial, the jury found Dr. Callahan not negligent. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, arguing prejudice from the exclusion of evidence about Dr. Callahan's treatment of other patients with similar surgeries and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied the motion, holding that the evidence of other patients was properly excluded as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial, and that the verdict did not result in a miscarriage of justice given the conflicting expert testimony on screw placement.
The case involved defendant Thomas William Frederick, who was convicted by a jury of three counts including aggravated sexual abuse of a child, sexual contact with a minor, and witness tampering. Frederick filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial or acquittal on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel by one of his attorneys during closing arguments, along with a stay of sentencing and withdrawal of his other counsel. The court denied all motions, holding that an ineffective assistance claim could be resolved on the existing record rather than deferred to a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Applying the Strickland standard, the court examined the totality of the circumstances and concluded that the attorney's closing argument did not fall outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.
The case involved challenges by the State of South Dakota and local governments to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' decision to take four parcels of land into trust for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act. Plaintiffs argued that the relevant provision of the Act was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, that BIA officials were biased, and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that prior precedent upheld the constitutionality of the Act, there was no evidence of bias by the decision-makers, and the BIA had properly followed applicable regulations in approving the trust acquisitions.
