889 N.W.2d 416
S.D.2017Background
- Lisa Swanson married Keith Mendenhall after her first husband died; they later separated and divorced; multiple family-court and protection-order proceedings followed.
- Prior to the civil trial, Keith stipulated to a five-year restraining order and Lisa obtained a protection order that was later extended; judges issued findings of fact and letter decisions in those proceedings.
- Keith sued Lisa for slander; Lisa counterclaimed for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, slander, and alienation of affection; Keith’s slander claim was dismissed pretrial.
- At trial on Lisa’s counterclaims, the circuit court admitted 14 exhibits consisting of court documents from prior proceedings and instructed the jury (Instruction 38) to accept judicially noticed facts in those exhibits as conclusive.
- The jury awarded Lisa compensatory and punitive damages; Keith appealed, arguing the court erred by taking judicial notice of facts in the prior proceedings without the required analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly took judicial notice of facts in 14 prior-court documents | Keith: court improperly admitted those exhibits as definitive facts via judicial notice | Swanson: documents are public records and/or established by issue preclusion; even if error, other evidence supported the verdict | Reversed and remanded for new trial — court erred by failing to apply the required judicial-notice or issue-preclusion analysis and the error was prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Opera Co. v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 235 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1956) (judicial notice is a substitute for taking evidence to establish facts)
- In re Dorsey & Whitney Tr. Co., 2001 S.D. 35 (S.D. 2001) (distinguishing adjudicative vs. legislative facts for judicial notice)
- United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1984) (issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues necessary to a prior judgment)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (policy rationales for preclusion doctrines)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless-error standard requiring assessment of substantial influence on verdict)
- In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2014) (courts generally will not judicially notice the truth of prior adjudicative findings)