Good Lance v. Black Hills Dialysis, LLC
2015 SD 83
| S.D. | 2015Background
- Vera Good Lance, a Shannon County (on Pine Ridge Reservation) resident, fell during dialysis at Black Hills Dialysis (BHD) and sued BHD and an employee in Shannon County; she later died and her estate continued the suit.
- Shannon County has no courthouse; it contracts with Fall River County so proceedings occur at the Fall River courthouse.
- A 2009 Seventh Circuit standing order (issued by the presiding judge in response to an Oglala Sioux Tribe executive order) directed that all Shannon County matters be tried in Fall River County and contemplated empaneling Fall River jurors instead of Shannon jurors.
- At a pretrial hearing the circuit court, relying on that standing order and its reading of precedent, announced it would summon Fall River jurors; Good Lance appealed the ruling via intermediate appeal.
- The Supreme Court of South Dakota held the presiding judge exceeded statutory authority by effectively changing venue for all Shannon County cases, reversed the circuit court, vacated the standing order, and directed that Shannon County jurors be summoned and empaneled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the standing order | Good Lance argued she suffered a concrete injury (loss of jury of her peers) and could pursue intermediate appeal | BHD argued she should have sought writ of certiorari and named the presiding judge | Court: Good Lance has standing; intermediate appeal is adequate and certiorari was not exclusive |
| Validity of presiding judge’s standing order / venue | Good Lance: venue statutes give plaintiff choice to sue in county where injury occurred; presiding judge lacked authority to alter venue | BHD: standing order authorized by statutes allowing presiding judges to prescribe jury procedures and local administration | Court: Standing order exceeded statutory authority, unconstitutionally altered venue; only Legislature may change venue statutes |
| Burden to justify venue (who must move) | Good Lance: plaintiff’s choice of venue is conclusive absent timely defendant motion to change venue | BHD: court must avoid empaneling Shannon jurors due to practical/jurisdictional problems | Court: Circuit court erred by forcing Good Lance to justify venue; burden lies with party seeking change |
| Ability to compel attendance of tribal/reservation jurors; fair jury concerns | Good Lance: voir dire and empaneling should proceed; speculative concerns premature | BHD: many Shannon residents are tribal members; state court cannot compel attendance, so jury would be unrepresentative | Court: Declined to decide now—claims speculative and must be addressed after jury is summoned and voir dire occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (discussed regarding state court authority over tribal members)
- State v. Cummings, 679 N.W.2d 484 (S.D. 2004) (interpreting Hicks language and its weight)
- State v. Blem, 610 N.W.2d 803 (S.D. 2000) (structural error in jury-selection where jurors were removed before voir dire)
- Putnam Ranches, Inc. v. O’Neill Prod. Credit Ass’n, 271 N.W.2d 856 (S.D. 1978) (plaintiff’s initial choice of venue is conclusive absent statutory grounds for change)
- Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Miller, 610 N.W.2d 76 (S.D. 2000) (standing requirements and when a litigant may challenge judicial action)
- United States v. Nat’l City Lines, 334 U.S. 573 (1948) (federal procedural power does not supersede venue statutes enacted by legislature)