Shannon County – Turtle Talk

South Dakota SCT Decides Matter Involving Shannon County (Pine Ridge) Jury Pools

November 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Good Lance v. Black Hills Dialysis (S.D.). From the opinion:

Vera Good Lance sued Black Hills Dialysis, LLC and LeEtta Brewer (collectively, BHD) for negligence after suffering an injury from a fall while at BHD’s facility in Shannon County on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.1 A dispute arose between the parties about whether the circuit court should summon jurors from Shannon County or neighboring Fall River County. A 2009 standing order issued by the Seventh Circuit Presiding Judge required that all cases filed in Shannon County be venued in Fall River County. In accordance with this order, the circuit court ruled that it would summon Fall River County jurors. Good Lance, through her estate’s administrator Hilda Kills Small, requested this intermediate appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Shannon County, S.D. to Change Name to Oglala Lakota County

November 7, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news article, “Shannon County voters approve name change.”

An excerpt:

The southwestern South Dakota county holds the majority of the land on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. It is named after Peter Shannon, a chief justice of the Dakota Territory Supreme Court who later helped negotiate land deals with the Lakota. Shannon isn’t well thought of among many American Indians.

Pine Ridge Voting Rights Act Concludes

September 23, 2013September 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News coverage here. South Dakota will provide an in-person absentee voting station in Shannon County (Pine Ridge Reservation) for the same number of days as all other areas — 46 days as required under state law — compared to the six days provided to Pine Ridge. South Dakota, after the conclusion of the case, asked for costs; Judge Schreier denied that motion.

Here are the materials in Brooks v. Gant (D. S.D.):

159 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

161 South Dakota Bill of Costs

161-1 Exhibit

162 Objection

163 DCT Order Denying Bill of Costs

An excerpt from docket number 163:

Under the facts of this case, it would be unjust to require plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs. Defendants refused to provide plaintiffs with the relief they requested until this lawsuit was filed. It was only when defendants faced actual litigation that defendants were able to work cooperatively with each other to provide the relief sought by plaintiffs. Additionally, plaintiffs stood to gain nothing personally from this Voting Rights Act litigation. The action was brought by individual plaintiffs, all of whom are persons without great means, to vindicate the voting right of all Native Americans who live on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Defendants on the other hand, who are being represented by the South Dakota Public Assurance Alliance, have the wherewithal to afford to pay their share of the costs associated with this litigation. Had defendants voluntarily agreed to provide the relief requested by plaintiffs when approached before the litigation was filed, they could have avoided the costs they are now seeking.