IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH ... - South Dakota
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
_____________________
Appeal No. 26682 _____________________
MEGAN RUSCHENBERG, JESSICA CORNELIUS, and HEATHER RENSCH, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
vs. DAVID ELIASON, in his individual capacity and as an owner and employee of ANNABELLE'S ADULT SUPER CENTER OF SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC, and OLIVIA'S OF SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC, d/b/a OLIVIA'S ADULT SUPER STORE; and ANNABELLE'S ADULT SUPER CENTER OF SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC and OLIVIA'S OF SOUTH DAKOTA, LLC d/b/a OLIVIA'S ADULT SUPER STORE
Defendants and Appellees. _____________________ Appeal From The Circuit Court , Second Judicial Circuit MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
THE HONORABLE STUART L. TIEDE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE _____________________
APPELLANTS' BRIEF
_____________________
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
Aaron D. Eiesland
ANNABELLE'S AND OLIVIA'S
Johnson Eiesland Law Offices, P.C.
Michael C. Luce
P.O. Box 6900
Murphy, Goldammer & Prendergast
Rapid City, SD 57709-6900
P.O. Box 1535
Sioux Falls, SD 57101
Manuel J. de Castro, Jr.
de Castro Law Office
ATTORNEY PRO SE
400 N. Main Ave. #205
David Eliason
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
401 S. Phillips Ave, #3
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
_______________________________
Notice of Appeal Filed April 26, 2013
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CASES .......................................................................................................... iii
APPENDIX ..........................................................................................................................v
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT.....................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF LEGAL ISSUES ...................................................................................1
ISSUES 1.
SHOULD THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MEGAN RUSCHENBERG'S ABORTION HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED? 1
2. SHOULD THE COURT HAVE GRANTED THE PLAINTIFFS A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON KEITH JOHNSON'S FALSE STATEMENT AT TRIAL AND VIOLATION OF HIS OWN MOTION IN LIMINE? ..........1
3. WAS THE JURY IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED AS TO THE LEGAL THEORIES AGAINST THE LLC'S? .........................................................2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................2
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
Issue 1:
SHOULD THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MEGAN RUSCHENBERG'S ABORTION HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED? .............................................................................................8
Issue 2:
SHOULD THE COURT HAVE GRANTED THE PLAINTIFFS A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON KEITH JOHNSON'S FALSE STATEMENT AT TRIAL AND VIOLATION OF HIS OWN MOTION IN LIMINE? ...........................................................................13
Issue 3:
WAS THE JURY IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED? ...........................16
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20
i
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................................................22 CERTIFICATE OF PROOF OF FILING ..........................................................................23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .........................................................................................23
ii
TABLE OF CASES
Bensen v. Gobel, 1999 SD 38, 593 N.W.2d 402 (1999) ....................................................................17, 19, 20
Burns v. McGregor Electronic, 955 F.2d 559 (1992).....................................................................................................17, 19
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 524 U.S. 775 (1998).....................................................................................................17, 18
Harter v. Plains Ins. Co., Inc., 1998 SD 59, ?32, 579 N.W.2d 625, 633 ........................................................................8, 16
Kaarup v. Schmitz, Kalda and Associates, 436 N.W.2d 845, 850 (S.D. 1989) ..................................................................................1, 9
Kaiser v. University Physicians Clinic, 2006 SD 95, P29, 724 NW2d 186, 194 ..........................................................................1, 7
Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc., 517 NW2d 419 (SD 1994) ........................................................................................2, 7, 16
Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Elec. Co., 1996 SD 145, 557 NW2d 748 .......................................................................................2, 20
Loen v. Anderson, 2005 SD 9 (S.D. 2005)...................................................................................................2, 14
Nichols v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 154 F.3d 875, 884-885 (8th Cir. (Mo.) 1998) ................................................................1, 10
Nickerson v. G.D. Searle & Co., 900 F.2d 412, 418 (1st Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................1, 11
Pickett v. The Colonel of Spearfish, et al., 209 F.Supp.2d 999, (2001) ..........................................................................................17, 19
Picotte v. Pasion, et al., 98-cv-04147, doc #101, U.S. Dist. Ct., Western District of South Dakota 2001 ..17, 18, 19
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 116 (U.S. 1973).............................................................................................9
Schoon v. Looby, 2003 SD 123 (S.D. 2003).................................................................................................2, 8
iii
State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61, P30, 627 NW2d 401, 415 ...............................................................................6 State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, P42, 693 NW2d 685, 699 ......................................................................2, 7, 8 State v. Packed, 2007 SD 75, P24, 736 NW2d 851, 859 ...............................................................................6 Veith v. O'Brien, 2007 SD 88, P25 (S.D. 2007) ..............................................................................................7 Other Authorities: SDCL ? 15-6-59.................................................................................................................13 SDCL ? 19-12-3.................................................................................................9, 10, 11, 12 SDCL ? 19-12-12.....................................................................................................7, 15, 16
iv
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- in the supreme court of the state of south south dakota
- public notice was given for this meeting on the board s
- regional officer assignments
- pearson edexcel level 1 level 2 gcse 9 1
- olivia s 50 th anniversary hard rock hotel cabo
- training speech sounds in non verbal autism a case study
- trevor edmonson jessica gomez garet litwiler alyssa
- undergraduate and graduate siena college
- trauma informed community building and engagement
- jessica olivia anak paie universiti malaysia pahang
Related searches
- supreme court of new york
- was the supreme court always 9
- map of the state of florida
- the strategic importance of the island of socotra
- secretary of the state of missouri
- history of the state of alabama
- map of the state of maine
- supreme court of georgia probate court forms
- landmark supreme court cases civics state exam
- secretary of the state of ct
- how did the supreme court rule today
- constitution of the state of colorado