In 2025, the SD Supreme Court handed down a total of 74 published decisions, yielding an average of 1.4 decisions per week. This past week the Supreme Court handed down 4 new published decisions, an unusually large number of “hand downs.” This week’s column will summarize those decisions. 

 ADVISORY OPINION, 2026 S.D. 7: This decision is a prompt response to a question put to the Court by Governor Larry Rhoden. In a scenario which appears to be recurring (due to the ongoing absence of a Senator rendering an even number of 34 for participating Senators), Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen broke a tie vote in the Senate. The propriety of the Lt. Governor acting in this scenario was challenged. In this unanimous ruling, the SD Supreme Court upheld the role and duty of the Lt. Governor to cast a deciding vote in ties, even if not all Senators participated in the tie vote.

DEP’T OF TRANSPORTATION v. GUSTAFSON, 2026 S.D. 8: This suit addresses whether a loss of access is compensable in a condemnation action. The property in question is near one of the most well-known intersections in South Dakota: I-29 and 41st Street in Sioux Falls, and it was condemned in connection with the reconstruction of that interchange. The trial court’s determination resulted in a $1.5M award to the landowners, but this holding was reversed on appeal. The Court’s decision was split (3-2), with the majority decision running 38 pages and 58 ¶ s. Readers interested in learning more about this case are encouraged to reach out to the author as instructed below. 

STATE v. JANES, 2026 S.D. 9: Defendant appealed his conviction for child abuse or cruelty of a minor, his stepchild. On appeal, the conviction was affirmed but the case was remanded to the trial court for a re-calculation of the amount of restitution. 

WELLS FARGO v. MYERS, 2026 S.D. 10: This is a debt collection action against “Mary Myers.” There are at least two individuals with that name, and the wrong woman (“Mary 2”) was served with the lawsuit. Mary 2 hired a lawyer, who asked Wells Fargo to dismiss the case against her. When the dismissal was not forthcoming, her attorney sought Rule 11 sanctions, which the trial judge awarded in the amount of $3,662.93 for her attorney’s fees. The SD Supreme Court reversed this award, finding that the conduct in question did not meet the requirements necessary to impose sanctions under Rule 11. 

More Information: Anyone desiring to obtain a copy of any of these decisions, or to simply communicate with the Author, may do so by sending an e-mail to the author at rogermbaron@gmail.com .