Summary
The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed a jury verdict for Bridgewater Quality Meats and against Leonard Heim on Heim's counterclaim concerning payment for buffalo delivered for slaughter and processing. The court held that the trial court's failure to rule within the statutory period operated as a denial of Heim's motion for a new trial but did not preclude appellate review. It further held that the Animal Industry Board delivery record was not sufficient to warrant a new trial because Heim lacked reasonable diligence in discovering it and did not show that it would probably produce a different verdict.
Holdings
- A motion for a new trial that is deemed denied under SDCL 15-6-59(b) remains subject to appellate review; the circuit court's failure to act within the statutory period does not eliminate appellate jurisdiction or reviewability.
- The abuse-of-discretion standard applies when a motion for a new trial is automatically denied by operation of law because the circuit court failed to rule within twenty days.
- The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because Heim failed to show both that the evidence could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence before trial and that it probably would have produced a different result.
Questions Presented
- Whether the statutory denial of Heim's motion for a new trial under SDCL 15-6-59(b) was subject to appellate review.
- Whether the abuse-of-discretion standard applies when a motion for a new trial is deemed denied because the circuit court failed to rule within the statutory period.
- Whether records discovered after trial concerning a February 2000 buffalo delivery constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Schmidt v. Royer, 1998 SD 5, 574 N.W.2d 618, 621(followed)
- In re Shepard's Estate, 221 Cal. App. 2d 70, 34 Cal. Rptr. 212, 214 (1963)(cited favorably)
- Strauch v. Bieloh, 16 Cal. App. 2d 278, 60 P.2d 582, 584 (1936)(cited favorably)
- Bon Homme Co. Comm'n v. AFSCME, 2005 SD 76, 699 N.W.2d 441, 452(followed)
- City of Sioux Falls v. Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency, 2004 SD 14, 675 N.W.2d 739, 744(followed)
- State v. Gehm, 1999 SD 82, 600 N.W.2d 535, 540-42(followed)
- United States v. Bransen, 142 F.2d 232, 235 (9th Cir. 1944)(cited favorably)
- George v. Estate of Baker, 724 N.W.2d 1, 12 n. 8 (Minn. 2006)(cited favorably)
- State v. Steele, 510 N.W.2d 661, 664 (S.D. 1994)(followed)
- State v. Willis, 396 N.W.2d 152, 154 (S.D. 1986)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…