Opinions

Subscribe to Opinions via RSS

State v. Gaters, 2017 SD 60.  Officers arrested defendant after they executed a search warrant at his friend’s home.  During the search, the officers found marijuana in the defendant’s van parked outside the home.  Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, asserting that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  The circuit court found that the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his friend’s home and could not challenge the search.  The court alternatively ruled that the search did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.  Defendant appealed, and, per Justice Wilbur, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the defendant had not met his burden that he had a subjective expectation of privacy in his friend’s home that society would recognize as reasonable.
Continue Reading September 21, 2017, Case Summaries

State v. Wayfair, Inc., et al., 2017 SD 56.  South Dakota has no state income tax and relies on retail sales and use taxes for much of its revenue.  Under state statute, sales tax is generally collected by sellers selling merchandise in this state at the point of sale and is remitted to the state by those sellers.  United States Supreme Court decisions prohibit South Dakota from imposing this collection obligation on sellers with no physical presence in the state.  But, as internet sales by these sellers have risen, state revenues have decreased.  Faced with declining revenues, the 2016 South Dakota Legislature passed legislation extending the obligation to collect and remit sales tax to sellers with no physical presence in the state.  The Legislature specifically passed the legislation to challenge the United States Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause decisions.  Under the legislation, South Dakota commenced a declaratory judgment action in circuit court, seeking a declaration that certain internet sellers with no physical presence in the state must comply with the requirements of the 2016 legislation.  The sellers moved for summary judgment.  Adhering to existing precedent, the circuit court granted the motion, entered judgment for the sellers, and enjoined the state from enforcing the legislation.  South Dakota appealed, but the South Dakota Supreme Court, per Justice Severson, unanimously affirmed.
Continue Reading September 13, 2017, Case Summaries

Surat Farms v. Brule Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2017 SD 52.  Albert Delaney filed a drainage complaint with Brule County, alleging that Surat Farms was partially blocking drainage of an intermittent watercourse.  Delaney contended that the blockage caused water to back up onto his adjacent property.  The Brule County Board of Commissioners held a hearing and found that Surat impermissibly altered the watercourse.  Surat appealed the Board’s decision, and the circuit court, after de novo review, affirmed.  Per Justice Zinter, the Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the evidence supported the circuit court’s finding that Surat’s drain system improperly interfered with Delaney’s drainage rights, and that the circuit court did not err in awarding injunctive relief.
Continue Reading August 31, 2017, Case Summaries

Hoffman v. Van Wyk, 2017 SD 48, The Hoffmans owned property in Douglas County and learned that Luebke had applied for and received a building permit for a hog confinement unit from Van Wyk, the Douglas County Planning and Zoning Administrator.  The Hoffmans applied for a writ of mandamus, compelling Van Wyk to comply with the County’s zoning ordinance and revoke the building permit. The circuit court held a trial and denied the Hoffman’s request.  The Hoffmans appealed, and Van Wyk filed a notice of review.  The Court, per Justice Severson, affirmed insofar as the circuit court concluded that the building permit should not have been issued but affirmed its decision denying the Hoffmans a writ of mandamus.
Continue Reading August 10, 2017, Case Summaries

Brude v. Breen, 2017 SD 46.  Brude brought a lawsuit against Shane Breen, who was doing business as Yellow Jacket Irrigation and Landscaping, for negligence in constructing a retaining wall that injured her.  The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Yellow Jacket on the basis that the claim was barred by a ten-year statute of repose.  Brude appealed, and the Supreme Court, per Justice Severson, reversed and remanded.  While statutes of repose ordinarily run from the last culpable act or omission of the defendant, the applicable statute of repose ran from the date of substantial completion of construction.  Because the work done in 2011/2013 that led to Brude’s injury could be considered an improvement to real property, not a mere repair, and because her claim was brought within ten years of substantial completion of that improvement, her claim was not barred.  Additionally, or alternatively, because she set forth sufficient facts that her injury arose out of 2011/2013 work on the retaining wall, and not 2005 work, her claim may not be barred in any event.
Continue Reading August 3, 2017, Case Summaries