Glen A. Severson

Nodak Mutual Insurance paid no-fault benefits to its North Dakota insured, Nichole McDowell, after a South Dakota car accident caused by South Dakota resident Kevin Dunn. McDowell sued Dunn for negligence and settled the case for $20,000 without notifying Nodak, which then sued both defendants seeking reimbursement through subrogation. The trial court granted summary judgment to McDowell and Dunn, ruling that Nodak had no subrogation right because Dunn qualified as a secured person under North Dakota law. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dunn was not a secured person since his vehicle was neither registered nor operated in North Dakota at the time of the accident, and North Dakota no-fault statutes do not convert a South Dakota liability policy into no-fault coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on Nodak's subrogation claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Reinfeld v. Hutcheson, the plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence after a 2004 car accident in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where the defendant admitted fault but contested the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages. The jury awarded past and future medical expenses but nothing for pain and suffering, disability, or lost wages or earning capacity. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, finding the damages award inadequate and inconsistent with the evidence of the plaintiff's ongoing pain and medical needs. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial based on the jury's verdict. The court also addressed related evidentiary and jury instruction issues but did not reach them after affirming the new trial order.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over the guardianship of three minor children between their mother, A.G., and their paternal grandmother, L.N., after the mother temporarily placed the children with the grandmother while relocating and seeking employment. The circuit court granted permanent guardianship to the grandmother under the South Dakota Guardianship Act and awarded visitation to the mother, while also appointing counsel for the mother at county expense. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the guardianship and visitation orders, finding they were properly based on statutory authority and the children's best interests, but reversed the portion requiring Hughes County to pay the mother's attorney's fees, holding that no statute authorizes imposing such costs on the county rather than other parties or sources. The court noted the circuit court's authority to appoint counsel but clarified limits on fee allocation in guardianship proceedings.

family law

The case involved a dispute over dividing the remaining corpus of the SVB Trust, which held settlement proceeds from wrongful death lawsuits filed by the estates of three individuals killed in an airplane crash. Stacie Wilcox, as personal representative of the Sheesley estate, sought a declaratory judgment to apportion the funds between the Sheesley and Vermeulen estates after the trust agreement provided no distribution formula. The trial court applied judicial estoppel to bar Dee Ann Vermeulen, as personal representative of the Vermeulen estate, from introducing additional expert testimony on economic losses in the distribution proceeding, on the grounds that the parties had jointly relied on a single forensic economist during the underlying litigation and settlements. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the new evidence based on the parties' prior consistent positions.

proceduretorts & liability

Francis Janis sued Nash Finch Company, operator of Prairie Market, alleging negligence after he slipped on a patch of ice hidden under a rug inside the store entrance, fell twice, and injured his knee and wrist. The trial court granted summary judgment to the store, finding no duty of care because the risk was not foreseeable in the absence of any prior similar incidents. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a business possessor owes invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care to discover concealed conditions that may pose an unreasonable risk of harm, even if unknown, and that the jury must determine whether the store would have discovered the ice and realized the risk under the circumstances. The court clarified that the duty under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 arises from both known dangers and those discoverable through inspection, rejecting the trial court's foreseeability analysis based solely on lack of prior incidents.

torts & liability

The case involved a breach of contract action by O'Neill Farms, a South Dakota corporation, against Texas resident Todd Reinert over disputes arising from a lease agreement for a John Deere combine that included a forum-selection clause designating Todd County, South Dakota as the venue for any legal action. The circuit court granted Reinert's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the forum-selection clause was unreasonable and unenforceable and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the clause was enforceable because the lease resulted from an arms-length transaction and Reinert failed to make a strong showing that South Dakota was an unreasonable forum or would deprive him of his day in court. The court reasoned that prior dealings between the parties, partial performance and execution of the agreement in South Dakota, and the clause's presumption of validity supported its enforcement, thereby establishing Reinert's consent to personal jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Tanner Wangsness sued Builders Cashway, Inc. in strict products liability, alleging that a bi-fold door the company sold and installed was defective because of an unguarded rotating shaft and cable plus inadequate warnings, and that the defect caused the amputation of four fingers on his left hand when he was fifteen. The case proceeded to trial after the manufacturer was dismissed, and the jury returned a verdict for Builders Cashway, which the circuit court entered as judgment. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, upholding the judgment after reviewing challenges to the jury instructions on assumption of the risk and the standard applicable to a minor plaintiff.

torts & liability

In State v. Thunder, Barry Glenn Thunder was convicted of rape and possession and manufacture of child pornography after images and videos on a cell phone were discovered by family members who had evicted him from their home. Thunder appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that a police officer's viewing of videos on the cell phone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Thunder lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone because his possession of it was wrongful—he had been forcibly removed from the premises multiple times, including after breaking in, and had no permission to use the device that belonged to family members. The court reasoned that, similar to a burglar in a cabin, any subjective expectation of privacy Thunder might have held was not one society would recognize as legitimate under the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Joel Darling, a stone mason employed by West River Masonry, who suffered a back injury in January 2005 while carrying blocks down stairs at a job site. Darling sought benefits for treatment of his overall back condition as well as specific issues including disk bulges, nerve impingement, stress fractures, and disk slippage, which became more symptomatic after a May 2006 non-work incident. The South Dakota Department of Labor found the 2005 work injury was a major contributing cause of all conditions and awarded benefits, but the circuit court reversed on the specific conditions; the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court reasoned that expert testimony from Darling's treating physicians supported causation from the work injury, that the absence of certain findings on an earlier MRI did not disprove their existence or work-related origin, and that the opinions of treating doctors were entitled to substantial weight over a reviewing expert.

labor & employment

This case involves the division of marital property in a divorce between Barbara and Lawrence Halbersma, focusing on whether and how to include Barbara's substantial inheritance from her mother in the marital estate. On remand from a prior Supreme Court decision (Halbersma I) that required including the inherited assets for equitable division, the circuit court awarded Lawrence half the equity in the Brandon residence (which had become marital property), included Lawrence's own old inheritances in the estate, and ordered Barbara to pay an additional sum with 5% interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the award related to the residence but reversed the sua sponte inclusion of Lawrence's inheritances, holding that the circuit court lacked authority to add them without proper findings, and remanded for clarification on the interest rate to ensure it aligns with the overall property division plan or defaults to the statutory rate. The decision applies the law of the case from Halbersma I while correcting errors in the remand proceedings.

family lawproperty

Randall and Lori Masad sued the South Dakota Department of Corrections and various officials after Randall, a food service director employed by a private contractor at the state penitentiary, was assaulted by an inmate with a prior history of violence whose institutional file and disciplinary status were not properly transferred or considered during moves between facilities. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the negligence claim was barred by immunity statutes SDCL 3-21-8 and 3-21-9(5), that applying those statutes did not violate the state constitution, and that Masad was not a third-party beneficiary of the contract between his employer and the State. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, specifically upholding the circuit court's determination that the contract was unambiguous and did not intend to confer enforceable rights on CBM employees like Masad.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawprocedure

This case involved Mitchell Monette's appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition after he entered a no contest plea to aggravated assault and admitted to being a habitual offender, resulting in a 25-year sentence. The South Dakota Supreme Court determined that the sentencing court failed to establish on the record that Monette's plea was voluntary and that he knowingly waived his constitutional rights against self-incrimination, to confront witnesses, and to a jury trial, as required under Boykin v. Alabama. The court therefore reversed the habeas court's ruling on the plea, directed that the plea be voided, and remanded for further proceedings, while rejecting Monette's additional claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a firearms expert.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Terry McNeil's workers' compensation claim against his employer, Superior Siding, Inc., and its insurer, Acuity, for an upper back injury sustained on August 13, 2005, while moving a box of siding. McNeil did not immediately report the injury, believing it to be a minor muscle strain, but filed a first report of injury on November 8, 2005, after symptoms persisted, and later sought medical treatment leading to a diagnosis of a herniated disc. The Department of Labor found McNeil had good cause for the delayed notice under SDCL 62-7-10, but the circuit court reversed, applying an objective standard and denying the claim. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the circuit court in part, holding that a reasonable person of McNeil's background would not have recognized the injury's nature, seriousness, and compensable character until around the time of reporting, thus establishing good cause for the delay.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned Anthony Johnson's convictions for distributing one ounce or less of marijuana and possessing two ounces or less of marijuana, based on a controlled buy arranged with an informant named Lewis. Johnson appealed the circuit court's admission of certain statements by the informant into evidence. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions but reversed in part due to the improper admission of hearsay statements, remanding for a new trial. The court reasoned that while the evidence, including the informant's statements, was sufficient when considered with all trial evidence, the error in admitting the statements required retrial without violating double jeopardy.

criminal lawprocedure

In this South Dakota case, general contractor Gary Severson filed a mechanic's lien against property owners Whitewood Investors for over $500,000 in unpaid construction work on a saloon, after which Dakota Craft and other lienholders challenged the lien's validity during foreclosure proceedings. The circuit court granted summary judgment invalidating the entire lien for insufficient itemization. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the lien only for the portion (the first attachment totaling $84,275) that met the Ringgenberg exception by describing a specific result at a fixed price, while invalidating the remaining attachments because they lacked the detail needed to inform an ordinarily intelligent person of the work and costs involved. The decision applied established precedent on the specificity required for mechanic's liens under state law.

propertyprocedure

The case involved the termination of a father's parental rights to his two young children, who were members or eligible for enrollment in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, after the children were removed from their mother's care due to neglect and the father was incarcerated on unrelated charges. The trial court adjudicated the children neglected and terminated the father's rights following a dispositional hearing. The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed the termination, holding that it was not the least restrictive alternative available given the father's impending release from jail and the possibility of legal guardianship, and that termination was premature per the ICWA expert's testimony. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to qualify the ICWA expert witness.

family lawcivil rights

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Lance Wellman against his employer Schad Excavation and its insurer for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits following a compensable leg injury. Wellman returned to work with restrictions at his prior pay rate but was terminated for attendance issues after about three weeks; he did not seek other employment and claimed TPD benefits for the period until he reached maximum medical improvement, based on the difference between his statutory compensation rate and actual earnings. The South Dakota Department of Labor denied the claim, finding that Wellman could have earned his pre-injury wage if he had worked full time and that he failed to prove any income loss due to his injury. The circuit court affirmed, and the South Dakota Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that termination for cause does not automatically bar TPD benefits but that the claimant bears the burden of proving that the work-related disability caused a loss of income or earning capacity, which Wellman did not meet since he made no effort to secure other work and provided no supporting evidence.

labor & employment

The case involved residents of Deuel County, South Dakota, who submitted two initiative petitions under SDCL 7-18A-11 to amend local zoning ordinances, including changes to special exceptions procedures, concentrated animal feeding operation setbacks, shelterbelt requirements, and the addition of referendum rights for certain zoning board decisions. The county board rejected the petitions as noncompliant with state zoning statutes, leading the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus, which the circuit court granted to compel submission to voters. On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that the proposed initiatives exceeded the county's authority because they attempted to reclassify quasi-judicial administrative decisions as legislative actions subject to referendum and to bypass statutory approval requirements. The court reasoned that initiatives are limited to measures the county board itself could enact under existing law, such as SDCL ch. 11-2, and cannot override or expand statutory procedures for zoning modifications. Mandamus was therefore inappropriate as no clear legal duty existed to place the petitions on the ballot.

propertyprocedureelections

This case is a disciplinary proceeding against William J. Janklow, a licensed South Dakota attorney and former elected official, following his December 2003 convictions for failure to stop at a stop sign, speeding, reckless driving, and second-degree manslaughter arising from a fatal August 2003 car accident. The Disciplinary Board recommended a 26-month suspension of his law license beginning December 15, 2003, with reinstatement on February 15, 2006, subject to conditions including compliance with probation and reporting of any further violations. The South Dakota Supreme Court adopted the recommendation, finding the suspension appropriate given the convictions and Janklow's high public profile, which amplified the damage to the legal profession's integrity compared to similar cases involving less prominent attorneys. The court noted that Janklow's license had already been automatically suspended upon reporting the felony conviction under SDCL 16-19-37 and that the sanction aligned with precedents emphasizing the need for greater severity when public officials violate the law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Kottman, the defendant, a parolee who had signed a supervision agreement allowing warrantless searches of his home by police upon reasonable suspicion of a parole violation, was convicted of possessing methamphetamine after officers found a pipe during such a search prompted by his suspected involvement in a burglary at his former workplace. Kottman appealed, claiming the search was unconstitutional without a warrant or adequate suspicion. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the parole waiver was valid following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Knights and that the officers possessed reasonable suspicion based on information from the business owner about Kottman's recent firing, his knowledge of the premises, and his criminal history.

criminal lawprocedure