David E. Gilbertson

The case concerned Patricia Edwards's appeal of circuit court orders ratifying a police officer's impoundment of fifteen cats found roaming freely inside her cluttered vehicle in Pierre, South Dakota, and later transferring ownership of the cats to a local humane society. The officer had impounded the animals after observing obstructed visibility and safety hazards caused by the cats and the vehicle's condition, citing concerns for both public safety and animal welfare under state statutes. Following hearings, the circuit court found exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure and, after Edwards presented no plan for the cats' care or safe transport, ordered their transfer for adoption. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the impoundment was proper and that Edwards had not met requirements to regain custody. A dissent argued that no exigent circumstances or neglect existed and that the cats should have been returned.

criminal lawproperty

In the probate of Fred L. Berg's estate, his niece Carol Opdahl challenged the will, alleging that Berg lacked testamentary capacity due to his history of schizophrenia and a lobotomy, and that his nephew Roger exerted undue influence. The trial court upheld the will after hearing testimony from witnesses including the drafting attorney and caregivers, finding sufficient evidence of capacity and no undue influence. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's credibility determinations and factual findings were supported by the record, including medical records showing improvement and the attorney's testimony about Berg's understanding at the time the will was executed in 1999.

family lawproperty

Raven Industries sued former employee Clark Lee and competitor Integra Plastics, alleging that Lee violated non-disclosure agreements by using Raven's confidential manufacturing information to help Integra build a similar production line, and sought injunctive relief for unfair competition. After a bench trial, the circuit court issued a two-year permanent injunction in Raven's favor based on findings that the information was secret or proprietary, that harm was caused and would continue, and that the balance of equities supported relief. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the circuit court properly applied the standards for injunctive relief under state law without abusing its discretion.

business & regulatorylabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved the adjudication of eleven-year-old W.T.M. as delinquent for violating SDCL 22-22-7 by touching his penis to the buttock of an eight-year-old boy during a game of truth or dare. The juvenile court found the act was committed with the specific intent to arouse or produce sexual gratification. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the adjudication, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the required specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, as the circumstances suggested it was a prank rather than an act for sexual gratification.

criminal law

The case involved Julio Juarez Ralios, who was convicted of second-degree rape after allegedly entering E.C.'s home, holding her down despite her protests, and raping her while her young child was present. Ralios appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress statements made during custodial interrogation as well as evidentiary rulings excluding testimony about the victim's alleged prior false rape claim and her mother's opinion of her personality. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the interrogation statements were admissible, the prior allegation was not shown to be demonstrably false under precedent, and the mother's testimony lacked foundation or relevance to the police investigation. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary decisions.

criminal lawprocedure

DFA Dairy Financing Services sued the Lawson Special Trust and related parties to foreclose a mortgage on real property owned by the trust, which had been executed by Minnie Lawson as trustee. The trust document creating the Lawson Special Trust explicitly barred trustees from mortgaging or encumbering its assets to satisfy debts, and the deed transferring the property to the trust had been recorded. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Minnie lacked authority to grant the mortgage and that DFA could not rely on equitable doctrines such as estoppel or an implied trust because it had notice of the trust restrictions and failed to verify the trustee's powers. The court rejected DFA's arguments that the hold-harmless clause or recording statutes protected its interest.

propertyprocedure

United Building Centers filed a complaint to convert a criminal restitution order against David Ochs into a civil judgment after Ochs failed to complete payments on an insufficient-funds check conviction. Ochs argued the restitution had been discharged in his earlier Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the original criminal restitution order survived the bankruptcy discharge under federal precedent, but ruled the circuit court lacked statutory authority to convert it into a civil judgment and that doing so would violate the three-part test from Kelly v. Robinson; the court therefore affirmed the non-dischargeability ruling, reversed the conversion, and vacated the civil judgment and order.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Kyla Snelling, a teenager with Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type II causing severe physical limitations but normal intelligence (IQ of 109), appealed the denial of eligibility for a federally funded Medicaid waiver program providing in-home services to individuals with mental retardation or closely related conditions. The South Dakota Department of Social Services and an Administrative Law Judge determined she did not qualify because her disability was physical rather than mental, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Dakota upheld the rulings, holding that the applicable federal and state regulations limit the program to mental impairments or equivalent conditions, which Snelling's case did not satisfy. The court also affirmed denial of reimbursement for a functional evaluation because it was unnecessary for determining eligibility under the program's criteria.

healthcare

In this case, insurer De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance Company sued its insured, Gulbranson Development Company, seeking a declaratory judgment that its farm liability policy excluded coverage and any duty to defend Gulbranson in an underlying personal injury action arising from land development activities. Gulbranson countered that coverage and a duty to defend existed under a theory of estoppel, based on representations and assumptions made by De Smet's agent during policy procurement. The trial court ruled in Gulbranson's favor in part, holding that evidence from the declaratory action itself could be considered to establish estoppel. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the agent had sufficient information about the intended coverage for land development but procured an inadequate farm policy, imputing that knowledge to De Smet and creating a reasonable belief of coverage that triggered the broader duty to defend.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a divorce and child custody dispute between Kelly Jo Kreps and Jason Alan Kreps over their three children, where the mother had initially been the primary caregiver during the marriage and early separation but the father sought primary physical custody. After a trial, the circuit court awarded primary physical care of the children to the father, with joint legal custody. The mother appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not treating her status as the primary parent as the paramount factor, by allegedly disregarding the custody evaluator's report, and by not properly considering the full record. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that it did not abuse its discretion because the mother's primary caregiver status is not controlling over all other custody factors and the evidence supported the ruling as within the court's discretion.

family law

In State v. Ludemann, the defendant was stopped and detained on a university campus by student officers for public urination in violation of a city ordinance, which led to further questioning by a certified police officer and a subsequent DUI charge. Ludemann moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the student officers lacked authority to make a citizen's arrest under SDCL 23A-3-3 because the offense was a petty offense. The trial court denied the motion and convicted him of DUI, but the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the student officers had no statutory authority to arrest for a petty offense and that the certified officer also lacked authority to arrest without a warrant for that offense under SDCL 23A-3-2. The core reasoning was that public urination qualified only as a petty offense, rendering the initial detention an illegal arrest and requiring suppression of all resulting evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Loren Pourier's attempt to amend his motor fuel tax refund claims against the South Dakota Department of Revenue to add a class of Oglala Sioux Tribe member customers who purchased fuel from his reservation-based business. The Department denied the motion, the circuit court affirmed, and the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld that decision. The Court held that the state's limited waiver of sovereign immunity under SDCL 10-59-1, 10-59-17, and 10-47B-131.2 permits only individual refund claims by taxpayers or consumers and does not expressly authorize class actions. The majority reasoned that any expansion to class proceedings would exceed the statutory scope of the waiver, distinguishing the case from precedents allowing broader remedies.

taxesprocedure

TracFone Wireless sought a refund of overpaid telecommunications gross receipts taxes from the South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation after using the Department's provided forms and instructions for the period April 2004 to March 2007. The Department denied the refund request, and both the Office of Hearing Examiner and the circuit court dismissed TracFone's administrative appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the payment-under-protest procedure under SDCL 10-27-2 was the exclusive remedy and that SDCL ch 10-59 did not authorize an APA contested case hearing. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, determining that the statutes in SDCL ch 10-59 and SDCL 10-33A-12 are clear and unambiguous in providing an administrative process for such refund claims, thereby establishing jurisdiction for the appeal before the Secretary.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Cole v. Wellmark of South Dakota, Inc., the plaintiffs applied for health insurance coverage through an independent agent, selecting an effective date and paying the initial premium, but the insurer claimed it mailed proposed riders excluding coverage for a preexisting condition and later denied the application when the signed riders were not returned. After discovering a lack of coverage following an injury to their daughter, the Coles sued the insurer and agent, alleging duties under contract or tort theories to provide the requested coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the application expressly conditioned coverage on written approval, no policy or interim coverage was ever issued, the parties engaged in an arms-length transaction without a fiduciary relationship, and no contractual or tort duties arose under the facts presented.

healthcarebusiness & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

James McGregor sued Clint and Paige Crumley for breach of an oral contract to sell dairy cows, alleging both were jointly and severally liable. At a bench trial, McGregor presented evidence only of Clint's actions in forming and breaching the contract, with no evidence regarding Paige's involvement or any partnership. The trial court ruled for McGregor, finding Paige liable as Clint's partner in the dairy operation. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Paige, holding that the complaint did not allege a partnership, McGregor failed to prove one existed or that Paige held herself out as a partner, and the issue was raised too late in closing argument. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish Paige's liability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved H.L.S., a seventeen-year-old, who appealed the denial of her motion to suppress a urine sample taken after her warrantless arrest on suspicion of marijuana possession and ingestion. Law enforcement arrested her and five others during execution of a search warrant at an apartment where marijuana stems and seeds were found in plain view, then compelled the sample at a detention center based on her presence. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the arrest lacked probable cause because the record contained no facts showing H.L.S.'s specific location relative to the contraband upon the officers' initial entry, only her mere presence in the apartment. Without evidence of individualized suspicion that she was aware of and consciously possessed the drugs, the warrantless arrest and resulting urine test were invalid.

criminal lawprocedure

In Russo v. Takata Corp., plaintiffs brought wrongful death and personal injury claims against Takata alleging that defective seatbelts in a 1996 Geo Tracker unlatched during a rollover accident, causing one death and one injury. After the jury returned a defense verdict, the trial court granted a new trial based on juror misconduct, as one juror had performed Google searches on Takata before voir dire and shared the results with other jurors during deliberations, disclosing information about prior claims against the company that contradicted trial evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the extrinsic information was prejudicial on a hotly contested issue and warranted vacating the verdict.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a workers’ compensation insurer’s statutory lien on proceeds from a wrongful death settlement obtained by the estate of an employee killed on the job. After the federal district court approved a $1.09 million settlement and allocated damages between pecuniary and economic losses while approving 30% attorney fees, the insurer petitioned state court for a declaratory judgment on the lien amount. The circuit court granted summary judgment making all settlement proceeds available to satisfy the lien without distinguishing damage types and reduced attorney fees to 25%. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court must conduct a hearing to allocate economic versus non-economic damages for lien purposes and must apply the 30% attorney-fee rate approved federally, consistent with the 35% statutory maximum under SDCL 62-4-39 and prior precedent on prorated recovery.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Guerra, a traffic stop led to a drug dog search of the defendant's rental car, resulting in the discovery of over 200 pounds of marijuana and a charge of possession with intent to distribute more than one pound. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the dog and handler lacked proper certification under South Dakota statutes and administrative rules, that the dog did not reliably indicate on the vehicle, and that such alerts were insufficient for probable cause. The trial court denied the motion, leading to a conviction and sentence, and the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The majority reasoned that the team substantially complied with certification requirements despite procedural deviations, that the dog's indication was credible based on testimony, and that this provided adequate probable cause for the search. The court therefore upheld the admission of the evidence and the resulting conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Carter, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after an incident in which he and others pursued and attacked victims following a party dispute. On appeal, Carter argued that the trial court erred by refusing to allow impeachment of a key eyewitness whose testimony was consistent with her prior statements, that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and that the aiding and abetting jury instruction lacked evidentiary support. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the eyewitness's consistent testimony precluded impeachment, that testimony from co-perpetrators and an eyewitness sufficiently established Carter's involvement, and that evidence of Carter leading the pursuit supported the aiding and abetting instruction. The court found no abuse of discretion or error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure