Here are the materials in State v. Cummings:
South Dakota Supreme Court
South Dakota SCT Rejects Nonmember Challenge to County Taxing Authority on Indian Trust Lands
Here is the opinion in Pickerel Lake Outlet Association v. Day County:
South Dakota SCT Affirms Dismissal of Indian Education Claims
South Dakota SCT Briefs in Nonmember Challenge to County Taxing Authority on Indian Trust Lands
Here are the materials in Pickerel Lake Outlet Association v. Day County, South Dakota:
South Dakota SCT Dismisses Tort Claim Arising on Pine Ridge
Here is the opinion in Chase Alone v. Brunsch, Inc.:
South Dakota SCT Affirms Dismissal of State Court Action against Marty Indian School
Here is the opinion in Stathis v. Marty Indian School:
South Dakota Supreme Court Denies Transfer to Tribal Court [ICWA]
The Tribe requested transfer and the child’s attorney objected. The trial court did not allow testimony regarding bonding and attachment from the child’s doctor. The Supreme Court held
With or without the 2016 regulations, though, circuit courts need the benefit of a sufficiently developed record to assist in the good cause determination. See A.O., 2017 S.D. 30, ¶ 13, 896 N.W.2d at 656; In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d 598, 601 (S.D. 1993). In both A.O. and M.C., we held that the circuit court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing before determining the motion to transfer jurisdiction. In the absence of a developed record, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review concerning the merits of the parties’ claims.
[¶17.] As it relates to this case, we conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion when it granted the Tribe’s motion to transfer without hearing the testimony of the child’s physician who was present in the courtroom. Relying upon the impromptu offer of proof by Child’s counsel, the court determined that Dr.
Whitney’s testimony was categorically irrelevant. We disagree.
The Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Application of ICWA to Guardianship in South Dakota Supreme Court
Placement Preferences/Active Efforts (ICWA) Case from South Dakota Supreme Court
4. We are aware of the recent decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas holding parts of ICWA, including its placement preferences, unconstitutional. Brackeen v. Zinke, No. 4:17-cvoo868-0, 2018 WL 4927908 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2018). However, the decision may be appealed and ICWA has previously been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 109 S. Ct. 1597, 104 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1989). Moreover, we are not bound by the decision of the District Court in Texas and must presume that ICWA is constitutional. U.S. v. v. Nat’l Dairy Prods. Corp., 372 U.S. 29, 32, 83 S. Ct. 594, 597, 9 L. Ed. 2d 561 (1963) (noting that Acts of Congress have “strong presumptive validity’); State v. Rolfe, 2013 S.D. 2, ¶ 13, 825 N.W.2d 901, 905 (“Statutes are presumed to be constitutional[.]”).
The Father argued the state failed to provide active efforts when the children were not placed within the placement preferences. The Court did not agree with his argument.
South Dakota SCT Dismisses Appeal Challenging State Utility Approval of Keystone XL Pipeline
Here is the opinion:
You must be logged in to post a comment.