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.
September 13, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
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.
August 31, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
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.
August 24, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Constr., Inc. v. Joey Brown, Sonya Brown & Jerry’s Excavating, Inc., 2017 SD 51. Homeowners sued a general contractor and a subcontractor for damages to their home. The general contractor was insured under a CGL policy and requested defense and indemnification from its insurer. The insurer disputed coverage but defended the general contractor under a reservation of rights. The insurer later filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a judgment that the CGL policy did not provide coverage for the general contractor against the homeowners’ allegations. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court denied their motions, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the foreseeability of the homeowners’ damages. Both parties filed petitions for intermediate appeal, which the Court granted and consolidated. Per Justice Kern, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment in the favor of the insurer but reversed the denial of summary judgment in favor of the general contractor, explaining: “The circuit court erred by denying [the general contractor’s] motion for summary judgment on the question whether the [homeowners’] claims are covered by the CGL policy. While factual questions regarding the foreseeability of the expansive soils under the house may have been relevant to whether [the general contractor] breached a duty to the [homeowners] in the underlying suit, they are not relevant to the existence of coverage under the policy. The alleged failure to test the soil at the construction site was an occurrence, which triggered coverage. Neither exclusion . . . preclude[s] coverage in this case. The CGL policy requires [the insurer] to defend [the general contractor] against [the homeowners’] suit for damages.”
August 16, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
South Dakota Dep’t of Game, Fish & Parks v. Troy Township, 2017 SD 50. The Troy, Valley, and Butler Townships’ respective boards of supervisors vacated portions of several section-line highways in Day County. The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish & Parks appealed these administrative actions to the circuit court, asserting the highways provided access to bodies of water held in trust by the State for the public. The circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the Department then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Department argued that (1) by vacating the highways, the Townships denied public access to a public resources; (2) the highway vacations were not in the public interest; (3) the Townships’ decisions were based on improper motives; (4) the Townships denied the Department due process; and (5) the circuit court incorrectly imposed the burden of proof on the Department. On appeal, per Chief Justice Gilbertson, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision regarding the Valley and Butler Townships but reversed the circuit court’s decision regarding the Troy Township.
August 10, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
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.
August 3, 2017, Case Summaries
By Meghann Joyce on
Posted in Opinions
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.