John K. Konenkamp

The case involved B.Y. Development's application to expand its gaming resort in Deadwood's National Historic Landmark District, which the City of Deadwood Historic Preservation Commission denied after finding the project would encroach upon, damage, or destroy specific historic properties under SDCL 1-19B-62 and local ordinances including DCO 17.68.020(11) and 17.68.050. B.Y. appealed to the circuit court, which remanded for identification of affected properties but interpreted the statute without incorporating the city's ordinances. On further appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the enabling statute empowers cities to adopt such ordinances and that the commission's denial relied on those standards, so the circuit court must review the decision using both the statute and the ordinances. The matter was remanded for that examination.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Fisher, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of first- and third-degree rape and sexual contact with a child based on allegations that he had sexually abused his thirteen-year-old daughter over several years. At trial, the circuit court admitted evidence of the defendant's 1994 conviction for sexual contact with a child, which occurred when he was seventeen and involved his thirteen-year-old stepsister, ruling that it was relevant to show intent, motive, common scheme or plan, and identity. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prior conviction was too remote in time—especially given that the defendant was a juvenile at the time—and insufficiently similar to the current charges to be admissible under SDCL § 404(b). The court further determined that the error was not harmless because the prosecution relied heavily on the prejudicial evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joseph Bradley, who was on parole and charged with two counts of first-degree escape under SDCL 22-11A-2(3) and one count of simple assault on a public officer after incidents on October 22 and 30, 2008, in which he fled from parole and law enforcement officers. Bradley moved to sever the charges and for judgment of acquittal, both of which the trial court denied, resulting in convictions on all three counts. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed one escape conviction and the assault conviction but reversed the second escape conviction. The court reasoned that Bradley had submitted to immediate custody on October 22 by complying with a command to place his hands behind his back before fleeing, satisfying the statutory requirement, but had not done so on October 30 when officers attempted a roadblock without prior submission or physical restraint.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a divorce proceeding between Michael and Mildred Lovejoy in which the husband appealed the trial court's rulings on child custody, general and rehabilitative alimony, debt division, and attorney fees, while the wife cross-appealed the attorney fee award. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the awards of primary physical custody to the wife, the division of debts, and the attorney fees. It reversed and remanded the alimony awards because the trial court's findings did not adequately explain the husband's ability to pay, the wife's claimed expenses improperly included children's costs, and the rehabilitative alimony lacked any durational limit.

family lawproperty

The case concerned whether the South Dakota Department of Corrections violated House Bill 1271, which authorized acquisition of land for a combined minimum-security and parole facility and required public meetings before purchasing any property with revenue bond proceeds. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a purchase agreement signed by the DOC before the mandated meetings occurred. The circuit court and Supreme Court ruled that the DOC did not violate the statute. The court reasoned that execution of the conditional purchase agreement did not constitute a purchase under the bill, and the required public meetings were held before any use of revenue bonds to close on the property.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerned a 1982 tax lien filed by the South Dakota Department of Revenue against James Farmer for unpaid sales tax; after the Department sued to collect in 1985 but the action was dismissed in 1991 for failure to prosecute, Farmer sought a declaratory judgment in 2006 to release the lien when it appeared on a title search. The circuit court ruled the lien was extinguished under res judicata and awarded attorney fees, but the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the dismissal of the collection suit barred further enforcement of the lien because the Department had a full opportunity to litigate the obligation. However, the Court reversed the fee award, reasoning that SDCL 10-59-34 authorizes fees only for administrative hearings or appeals under chapters 1-26 and 1-26D, not for a collateral declaratory judgment action attacking a lien.

taxesprocedure

This case concerns the division of marital property in a divorce action between Mark and Rene Wiswell, who had operated an auto repair business together during their marriage. The circuit court issued a memorandum decision awarding specific assets and debts to each party, but its subsequent findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment and decree, and money judgment contained multiple contradictions regarding vehicle allocations, mortgage responsibilities, and a cash award of over $33,000. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the inconsistencies among the rulings made it impossible to conduct meaningful appellate review or determine whether the property division was equitable. The court noted that findings and conclusions must be consistent to support the judgment under applicable statutes and precedents.

family lawproperty

This case concerned a dispute over grandparent visitation rights in which David and Joyce Zimmer petitioned for court-ordered visits with their grandchildren after their son Scott and his wife Maria opposed any contact. The circuit court granted the grandparents two seven-day visits per year in California, finding the parents' objections unreasonable and not in the children's best interests. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the lower court failed to apply the constitutional standards from Troxel v. Granville by not according special weight to the fit parents' decision or identifying special factors that would justify state interference with parental rights. The Court emphasized that due process requires deference to parents' choices and that mere assertions of benefit to the children are insufficient to override those decisions.

family lawcivil rights

Sandra Williams was terminated from her secretarial position at the South Dakota Department of Agriculture for unsatisfactory work performance after receiving training, performance reviews, and a work improvement plan. She filed a discrimination charge with the Division of Human Rights claiming a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation for her complaints, plus a grievance with the Career Services Commission asserting lack of just cause for her firing. Both agencies ruled against her after investigation and hearing, finding no probable cause and good cause for termination based on documented performance issues, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed those rulings, applying standards of review under SDCL 1-26-36 and concluding the findings were not clearly erroneous and the termination was unrelated to her complaints.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Johnson v. Larson, a construction company sued a landowner and a second farmer alleging breach of oral contracts, conversion, and unjust enrichment after the company removed and stockpiled rock from the land in exchange for keeping it and installing drain tile, but the rock was later removed by the second farmer without payment. A jury found for the defendants on the contract and conversion claims, after which the circuit court awarded joint and several damages on the equitable unjust enrichment claim. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the award against the landowner because two express contracts governed the parties' rights, affirmed that the second farmer was unjustly enriched by taking the rock, and remanded for recalculation of damages based on the value of the benefit conferred rather than quantum meruit.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case concerned a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota about whether a volunteer firefighter driving his personal vehicle to a fire hall in response to an emergency call was "rendering emergency care or service" under South Dakota's Good Samaritan statute, SDCL 20-9-4.1. The underlying federal suit alleged negligence by the firefighter that caused severe injuries to a passenger in another vehicle, with claims against the fire district and department based on respondeat superior. The South Dakota Supreme Court answered yes, concluding that driving to the fire hall qualified as rendering emergency care or services during an emergency, thereby providing immunity from civil liability for ordinary negligence (but not for willful, wanton, or reckless acts) under the statute's text extending protection to motor vehicle operation connected to such care. The majority's reasoning emphasized the statute's broad language covering acts arising out of rendering emergency care and services, including vehicle operation, without limiting it to direct rescue of the injured party.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, beneficiary Jeanie Weekley sued the estate's personal representatives, Jerry Prostrollo and Robert Wagner, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence for delays in recovering estate assets like construction equipment and in paying her devise, following prior rulings in Brownlee I and II on tax apportionment and asset recovery. After a bench trial, the circuit court ruled for the representatives. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that one representative breached duties but Weekley failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty on certain claims while finding sufficient basis for interest on unpaid amounts and partial fee awards from prior proceedings.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Eunice Thomas Reese Trust, originally created to provide income to the Enchanted World Doll Museum as a qualified charity. After the museum ceased operations, the successor trustee CorTrust Bank petitioned the circuit court to assume supervision, terminate the trust under the cy pres doctrine, and distribute assets to the Mitchell Area Charitable Foundation. The circuit court granted the petition and ordered distribution to the foundation. Enchanted World Doll Museum appealed but did not serve notice on the foundation. The South Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the foundation was a party entitled to service under SDCL 15-26A-4(3) because the judgment vested rights in it, making timely service jurisdictional.

propertyprocedure

In this case, buyers of a home sued the seller for failing to disclose that the driveway encroached on a neighbor's property, alleging violations of disclosure statutes, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court dismissed some claims on statute of limitations grounds and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraudulent concealment claim after a jury verdict for the buyers. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seller owed no duty to disclose because there was no special relationship between the parties and the encroachment issue was reasonably discoverable by the buyers through their own survey or public records. The court reasoned that duties under the Restatement (Second) of Torts do not apply in arm's-length transactions absent shocking circumstances.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Larson, the defendant was arrested for simple assault and held in jail for 18 days without a judicial determination of probable cause, violating both South Dakota law and the Fourth Amendment under County of Riverside v. McLaughlin. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss but granted the defendant a presumption at trial that unpreserved evidence of his injuries would have supported his self-defense claim; he was convicted anyway. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the extended delay required the State to show a bona fide emergency or extraordinary circumstance, or else the court must assess whether the delay caused prejudice to the defendant's opportunity for a fair trial. The core reasoning focused on balancing the need to deter unconstitutional detention against societal interests in prosecution when suppression is unavailable, applying McLaughlin standards to determine the appropriate remedy.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved a defendant convicted on methamphetamine-related charges after police officers, responding to reports of gas fumes and a possible meter theft, entered his home without a warrant upon smelling ammonia and observed evidence of a meth lab in plain view, which supported a later search warrant. The South Dakota Supreme Court considered as a matter of first impression whether the community caretaker doctrine extends from vehicle searches to warrantless home entries to check for persons possibly overcome by fumes. The court concluded that the officers' entry was justified under the community caretaker function based on the specific circumstances, upholding the drug convictions, but held that dual convictions for drug crimes within overlapping drug-free school zones at a single location violated double jeopardy as they amounted to one offense. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The City of Wolsey sued property owner Russell Doolittle to abate a nuisance from a deteriorating, nonfunctioning elevator and grain bin complex infested with rodents and spoiled grain. After a hearing, the circuit court found the property a nuisance and ordered Doolittle to begin demolishing specified structures within 30 days or obtain a demolition contract, with full abatement required within six months, or else the city could abate at his expense. When Doolittle failed to start within 30 days, the city demolished the structures and the court held him in contempt, ordering reimbursement of over $41,000. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the prior hearing satisfied due process and that the order permitted city abatement upon noncompliance with the 30-day requirement.

propertyprocedure

In Wehrkamp v. Wehrkamp, a 1977 divorce decree incorporated a stipulation requiring the father to pay reasonable college expenses for the couple's daughter, with costs measured by his financial status. Years later, after the daughter enrolled in college at age 32, the mother sought to enforce the agreement via an order to show cause, prompting the father to request modification of the decree and both parties to move for summary judgment. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the father, holding that the claim was barred by the six-year contract statute of limitations as well as waiver and laches. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the twenty-year statute of limitations for enforcing judgments applied instead, and that waiver and laches were inapplicable because the stipulation set no time limit for enrollment and the delay did not prejudice enforcement of the judgment terms.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Kessler, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated grand theft by deception after borrowing over $300,000 from the Hemmers under agreements to build two spec houses, taking periodic draws while misrepresenting the construction progress, and ultimately failing to complete the projects or fully repay the loans. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conviction. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant had the requisite intent to deceive the victims at the time he entered the loan contracts or accepted the advances, as the misrepresentations about the house's status occurred later and did not establish deception in the initial agreements or draw requests. The decision emphasized that theft by deception requires proof of intent to deceive at the time of obtaining the property, and nonperformance alone cannot support an inference of such intent.

criminal law

The case involved a traffic stop on Interstate 90 where a drug-detection dog named Keya, which had not been annually recertified as required by SDCL 23-3-35.4, alerted to the presence of narcotics in defendant William Britton's vehicle, resulting in the discovery of 155 pounds of marijuana and his conviction for possession with intent to distribute. Britton moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the uncertified canine team violated state law and that the dog was unreliable based on its field performance and testing. The circuit court denied the motion after finding the dog reliable, and Britton was convicted following a bench trial. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the statute's certification requirement does not automatically compel suppression of seized evidence and that the trial court's reliability determination was not clearly erroneous under the totality of circumstances, including the handler's testimony and certification records.

criminal lawprocedure