Roberto Antonio Lange

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.

federal powerpropertyprocedurecivil rights

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.

federal powerpropertyprocedureenvironment

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

This case arose from a vehicle accident on the Rosebud Sioux Tribe reservation involving a child’s injuries, leading to charges against defendant Robert Medearis for tampering with evidence by removing a windshield from a truck that had been towed to his property. Medearis moved to suppress the windshield and related statements obtained during searches authorized by a tribal judge, including an initial written warrant for the truck and a subsequent telephonic expansion to search the residence. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, adopting it in part and denying it in part while granting the suppression motion in part and denying it in part. The core reasoning addressed the validity and scope of the warrants under tribal procedures, the permissibility of telephonic authorization without recording or oath in some circumstances, the defendant’s statements to officers, and whether the initial warrant covered the removed windshield found on the premises.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Schmidt, defendant Shana Schmidt was convicted by a jury of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury after a three-day trial. She moved for a new trial, arguing that her rights to due process and an impartial jury were violated because one juror (C.W.) had prior felony convictions involving fraud and false statements. The court denied the motion, finding that the juror had his civil rights restored and that Schmidt's counsel had learned of the convictions during deliberations but strategically waited until after the verdict was announced to raise the issue, thereby waiving any claim. The court also found no evidence of bias by the juror and noted that Schmidt had objected to replacing the juror with the alternate.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns defendant Justin Linder's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after a traffic stop for speeding on a South Dakota highway. Trooper Peterson smelled burnt marijuana on Linder in the patrol car, questioned him about it, and Linder eventually produced methamphetamine from his pocket, admitted to more drugs in the vehicle, and made additional statements before and after Miranda warnings were given; a search of the car then yielded a marijuana pipe and more methamphetamine. After de novo review of the record and factual findings, the district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The core reasoning was that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for the search and that certain statements were admissible, while others made without Miranda warnings while in custody were suppressed.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Garreau, the defendant was stopped for speeding, arrested on an outstanding warrant for driving with a suspended license, and subjected to a warrantless search of his vehicle that uncovered a stolen handgun hidden in the trunk under the spare tire; he was questioned about the gun at the scene without Miranda warnings and later made additional statements during a custodial interview after receiving Miranda rights. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to suppress evidence and statements. The core reasoning was that the vehicle search did not qualify as a valid inventory search because officers failed to follow standardized procedures in documenting items, nor was it justified as a search incident to arrest under Arizona v. Gant, and the government did not establish any other exception to the warrant requirement such as good-faith reliance on pre-Gant precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Constitution Party of South Dakota and several of its members challenging state election laws that imposed a 250-signature requirement for new-party gubernatorial candidates and restricted petition circulation to in-state residents, claiming violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as equal protection. The plaintiffs sought to place a party nominee on the 2010 ballot via court order after failing to meet the statutory deadline and requirements. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the challenged statutes did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, that the plaintiffs therefore had no likelihood of success on the merits, and that the public interest favored orderly election administration over the requested relief.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

The case involved Dale Lesmeister's appeal of his misdemeanor conviction for assault by striking, beating, or wounding under federal law after he pushed an intoxicated individual off his gas station property on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation, causing the victim to fall and sustain facial injuries. The district court affirmed the conviction from the magistrate judge's bench trial. The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing it in the light most favorable to the verdict, and determined that the evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while rejecting the defense-of-property claim because the victim was already departing the premises and the force used was excessive.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation seeking to enjoin arbitration of former executive Kevin Schieffer's claims for unpaid amounts under a 1994 consulting agreement and a 2004 employment agreement, including severance and tax gross-up provisions, after the railroad terminated him in 2008. The district court had previously dismissed the railroad's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and now denied its motion for an injunction pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not made a strong showing of likely success on appeal regarding the jurisdictional issue, that the equities weighed against delaying arbitration, and that no basis existed to exercise jurisdiction for injunctive relief.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad's effort to obtain injunctive relief blocking former executive Kevin Schieffer from pursuing arbitration over alleged unpaid amounts under a 1994 consulting agreement, a 2004 employment agreement providing severance benefits, and a related gross-up agreement for tax liabilities. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Its core reasoning was that the employment agreement did not qualify as an ERISA plan, depriving the court of federal-question jurisdiction over the dispute, and that Schieffer's claims arose from and were sufficiently related to the employment agreement to fall within its arbitration provisions rather than requiring judicial intervention.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Bell, Inc. sued IFS Industries in South Dakota federal court for breach of express and implied warranties regarding allegedly defective hot melt adhesive supplied for use in manufacturing express courier envelopes. IFS moved to transfer venue to Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), relying on a forum-selection clause in its Terms and Conditions of Sale that had been included with invoices sent to Bell over multiple years of transactions. The court granted the motion after determining that the clause was validly incorporated into the parties' contracts through their course of dealing, that South Dakota and Pennsylvania law both supported enforcement, and that the clause was not unreasonable or unjust so as to deprive Bell of its day in court. The case was therefore ordered transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Reynolds, the defendant moved to suppress statements he made during a custodial interview with a tribal police officer about 29 hours after his arrest on rape charges, arguing that his remark 'I plead the Fifth on that' invoked his Miranda right to silence and that his later statements were involuntary. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the motion after de novo review. The court held that the statement was not an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent that required stopping all questioning, as precedent requires a clear and unequivocal assertion, and that the interview's conversational tone, lack of coercion or threats, the defendant's age, education, and prior criminal justice experience, and his logical responses established that the statements were voluntary under the Fifth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, an employee sued a construction company for injuries sustained at work in a grain bin, and the company then filed a third-party complaint against the employer seeking to reduce damages or defeat a workers' compensation subrogation claim by attributing negligence to the employer. The court granted the employer's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The core reasoning was that South Dakota's workers' compensation statute, SDCL § 62-3-2, provides an exclusive remedy that immunizes the employer from liability as a joint tortfeasor, consistent with the state supreme court's holding in Hagemann v. NJS Engineering, Inc., which bars contribution or indemnity claims under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. The court also denied the motion to certify questions to the state supreme court, finding controlling precedent already existed. The topics selected are labor & employment and torts & liability.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Jones v. GGNSC Pierre LLC, the plaintiff, as special administrator of a nursing home resident's estate, brought a negligence action alleging that the facility's staff failed to prevent a fall that caused fatal head injuries. The defendants sought to enforce a Resident and Facility Arbitration Agreement designating binding arbitration under the National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure and governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Although the NAF had become unavailable for consumer disputes following a consent judgment, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under 9 U.S.C. § 3, while denying dismissal, because Section 5 of the FAA and a parallel South Dakota statute authorize appointment of a substitute arbitrator when the designated forum is unavailable. The court outlined a process for the parties to agree on or for the court to select a replacement arbitrator.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

In United States v. Betone, the defendant was charged with three counts of sexual abuse under federal law and moved to suppress statements he made during a voluntary interview with FBI agents, arguing that the statements were involuntary and obtained without Miranda warnings in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that Miranda warnings were not required because the defendant was not in custody, as a reasonable person would not have felt his freedom restricted to the degree of a formal arrest under the totality of circumstances, including the agents' advisements that the interview was voluntary and that he could leave at any time. The court further concluded that the statements were voluntary because the agents' conduct did not overbear the defendant's will, considering factors such as his education level and the non-coercive nature of the questioning.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and its tribal corporation seeking a temporary restraining order to halt an IRS public auction of the 7,100-acre LeMaster Ranch, which the Tribe had acquired as part of land consolidation efforts, in order to collect over $3.1 million in delinquent employment taxes, penalties, and interest. The court held a hearing shortly after the motion was filed and denied the TRO, also declining preliminary injunctive relief, while scheduling a full trial for March 2010. The decision rested on an analysis of the Dataphase factors for injunctive relief, finding insufficient grounds to issue the order despite the Tribe's interests in retaining reservation land for economic and cultural purposes, given the IRS's authority to collect owed taxes through levy and sale of non-trust property.

taxesfederal powerproperty