St. John v. Peterson

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court considered whether a circuit court could reconsider an evidentiary ruling on remand and reinstate a previously reversed judgment in a medical malpractice action. The majority held that the reversal and remand required a new trial and that the circuit court improperly reinstated the judgment based on reconsideration of a motion in limine outside the context of trial. Two justices dissented, concluding that the circuit court had properly applied the correct evidentiary standards on remand.

Holdings

1. A trial court may not reinstate a judgment based on a reconsideration of a motion in limine because such rulings are preliminary and interlocutory, subject to change during trial; the proper course is a new trial.
2. A reversal and remand without other direction nullifies the judgment and leaves the case standing as if no judgment had been entered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by reconsidering its motion in limine ruling after remand and reinstating the judgment for the defendant rather than granting a new trial.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding St. John's proffered evidence of other patients.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded