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.

Google Online Preview   Download