*1 REEVES, Ad Sharon Guardian
Litem Toni Plaintiff Appellant, REIMAN, Appellee.
Scott Defendant and
No. 18383.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Feb. Briefs
Decided Oct. Poehop
Rick Johnson and Stefanie Johnson, Eklund, Nicholson, Dougherty & Abourezk, Gregory, appellant. E. McMahon and Gregg James S. Green- Boyce, Murphy, field of McDowell & Green- field, Falls, appellee. Sioux *2 79 complaint, In KEAN, complaint her amended Judge. Circuit alleged Howe these facts: ACTION * accompany Reiman induced Howe to appeal granting an order from This is Mansion; him party a at the (Rei judgment Reiman summary for Scott * providing was instrumental Reiman man). by been Toni Howe He had sued beverages; alcoholic with (Howe). out The basis of the lawsuit arose * advantage her intoxi- Reiman took of at of facts from the infamous situation the by undressing her and cated condition (Mansion) Pierre, Mansion the Governor’s her; contact having sexual with Dakota, 28,1989. on Howe South November * 1991, February proceeding in brought this dragged She around the Mansion was juvenile completion the of a subsequent encouraged and Reiman others to have prior history of proceeding. The this case her; sexual contact with Supreme in the Court decision can be found * defamatory made comments to Action, County Hughes of the Matter of that she around the effect walked (S.D.1990) 90S, 128 452 N.W.2d No. Juv. voluntarily while nude and en- Mansion ancillary Falls Argus of Sioux and the case gaged in sexual contact with others. (S.D.1990). Young, 864 v. 455 N.W.2d Leader does not these words Although Howe use summary judgment are well rules for complaint, in her in essence amended she has upon in this and oftentimes ruled known assault, slander, in- sued for and intentional Koch, 490, In Laber v. 383 N.W.2d state. Actual and fliction of emotional distress. (S.D.1986) any held that it was punitive damages sought. were hearing summary judgment the evidence is non-moving party; in favor of the viewed discovery an answer. The filed no on the movant to show there is burden is interrogato- consisted of Howe’s answers to that he or of material fact and she issue Howe, Reiman, depositions ries and the law; judgment as a matter of entitled to a juvenile were at other males who three summary judgment is not a substitute for a evening. the Mansion on that A motion trial cannot who trial and the court surmise 15, summary was March judgment made on trial; and, prevail will at while motion is 1993, 26,1993. hearing held An March remedy, germane when no mate an extreme by Judge made Anderson oral decision was exists, is viewed rial issue the motion hearing grant- day at which he on on favor. The Laber decision went to note summary judgment request. Rei- ed non-moving present specific party must completed and man’s had not been deposition genuine issue of facts which demonstrate hearing time oc- transcribed pleadings not fact for trial and do control. However, Judge consid- curred. Anderson topic pleadings, party Id. at On deposition and wrote ered the later them, but may simply rely upon not must 6, nothing “I April 1993: find counsel on which develop facts demonstrate a dis grant alter this Court’s therein which would Safway pute Lalley in facts exists. v. Steel judgment was summary judgment.” The (S.D. Inc., 139, Scaffolds, 7, signed April on 108, 110 1985); Dacy, Parsons v. 502 N.W.2d (S.D.1993). Finally, recognized is now FACTS state, in this that “when facts are rule had attend- On November dispute, the standards of conduct are not at in Ft. Pierre ed school. was home Moreover, court to “a for the determine.” at called from the Mansion when Reiman has to the facts cannot testified her be- p.m. about 9:00 Reiman had dated a material of fact now claim issue (or her) people were fore. some He told contrary to his assumes a conclusion coming and she was over to the Mansion testimony.” Safway Lalley v. Steel own Inc., 141; juvenile and invited both another over Scaffolds, 364 N.W.2d at Waddell Bank, refused invitation Dewey County himself. While she 471 N.W.2d (S.D.1991). first, not eventually she n. relented. She > We leaving kissing. were parents tell her both Only younger knew asleep. sister What else? <© leaving. kissing making !> We were out and Reiman arrived at Howe’s home at about my he took clothes off me and then he p.m. From 10:00 drove took his shirt off and satwe down on *3 to truck over Pierre and drove around kissing the bed and we were and he they Man- fifteen minutes before went to the shut the door and he locked door truck, from sion. she had drink and I don’t remember when ... glass which contained Coke and Reiman’s Okay, happened what else between <¡o Upon arriving, they whiskey. entered and you, anything? the two of already found the other three males two kissing making i> We were and out. there. After short time the last of the four you Did have [with intercourse Rei- juvenile began males arrived. males «o night? man] that drink invited her to do so and also. She not_ six” in min- complied and had “about fifteen No, no, he we did wasn’t — conflicting The record some utes. contains your You had all clothes off? <o testimony about all six con- whether drinks Yes. > whiskey. or no tained some No one forced Did he have his clothes off? her to drink. Howe soon became sick and (O I if pants don’t know he had off aspirin. went to the bathroom find some !> helped males her. One of the Reiman then help also took arrived and and soon Q: That was a consensual act between the upstairs where locat- the bedrooms were you? two of ... ed. Q: you you Did I consent to that? mean Scott; that she up
Howe admitted and Reiman be- were was he gan kissing doorway upstairs in the forcing you to do that? bedroom. After a few minutes of activi- this A. No. ty, him she told she still needed to find some well, Q: something That was that — aspirin went downstairs to some. find you two of have done before? went When she downstairs one of the other A. Yes. her; resisted; males to kiss she he tried Q: you stay He didn’t force downstairs, stopped. While she was one of anything? room or the males asked her to to the basement liquor kept get where A. No.... another upon bottle. did this return She Q: right; Is it was consensual be- bottle, with the had another drink. Soon she you up tween two of until this upstairs and Reiman ended back in the bed- point in ... time? And, room. what occurred next de- is best say I no. A. didn’t deposition: scribed Howe’s own Q: you you Did tell him ever wanted to Q: up- So and Scott [Reiman] went leave? stairs then? No.... A. A. Yes. Q: happened What after that? Q: you go? Where kissing again for A. We were a little bathroom_ A. To bedroom the while and then I don’t I remember. Q: you and went that bed- Just Scott passed out. room? Howe and Reiman While the bed- A. Yes.... room, two of came the other males to the Q: closed Who the door? Although bedroom door and knocked. closed door. Scott point, appears on record not clear Q: happened me what in the bed- this same time the fourth male had Tell gone
room. another bedroom and either for Reiman who told her he did not know Reiman went to gone to bed. passed out hallway closing went stepped into the where were. She first the door thereafter, Shortly him. bedroom where she found her articles of the door behind naked, came opened the door and apparel. still was ill. hallway telling Reiman she into the influ- Howe went to school still under the across the her to the bathroom He assisted ence of the alcohol that lasted most of the entered, and, the bath- he shut hall after she day. felt sore all over and saw scratches loud noises com- he heard room door. Soon feet, bruises, fingernails. on her and broken falling if down. ing from inside as during to two of the males She talked having emerged she was trouble When day and them what had occurred. asked from behind walking. grabbed “Oh, responded by stating: nothing, Both *4 the hall. She was still walked her down nothing drank a little and it was bad. We and this scene was ob- nude at this time nothing worry Howe claims she to about.” Reiman claimed by two other males. served began more recollection of the events to have bedroom, placed the second he took her to boy day on. the as the went She asked (not bed), and covered the floor on the her on penetrated got how the scratch- her she two of the other with a blanket. One her her, responded and he that the other es on bed, on the thought her males (not Reiman) including had caused males the same bedroom floor. This was not the them. sleeping. male was now the fourth where after the next Within hours school started hallway two males the Neither of the day, began through high the rumors to flow they did see her the touched body. By day the school student the next nude. spread throughout Pierre rumors had both go and the two males decided concerning the of the and Ft. Pierre events went, they the two males a ride. Before true, prior day of them some embel- —some upstairs check on Howe because she went rumors themselves. lished the looked had vomited earlier. When bedroom, they her in bed with the saw “making out” at this The two were male. DEFAMATION - appeared all to be consensual. time and is of defamation. Slan Slander great after unprivileged does not recall a deal “a Howe der is defined as false libel,” being in with Reiman. She publication, the bedroom other than which: vomiting. remembers up and hallway and the males in the being in attempted began vomiting; intercourse She being in awakening bathroom, vomiting thought hallway. Reiman’s with her. She woke when the male the male also was recalled also recalled arms in the waking seeing bed (2) (4) want of Imputes Imputes to him or loathsome existence of [*] [*] chastity. him disease; or [*] infectious, contagious, [or [or her] her] :K impotence [*] present [*] or morning. up alone and 20-11-4. SDCL 20-11-2 showered, morning got up, Howe The next at the Apparently Howe heard the rumors directly to school. She not and went run- high then were local schools younger sister had called home because City throughout Capitol ning rampant go directly to Howe’s and told her to school. Yet, very specific about is not area. by telling had covered for her sister rumors, the content of the the nature of the gotten up and left the parents that Howe had rumors, rumors, of the or who the source practice. early Howe’s house for cheerleader called some the rumors. She was started night of that are recollection about the events pointing names at school and students very sketchy. night things occurred that at her. Similar high game. While cer- up school basketball When Howe first woke plead any tainly upsetting, Howe does not clothing in the second bedroom. look for falsity of the yelled facts which set forth either to find them she downstairs Unable 82 being design them Reiman. nor source intent or to cause the or to
statement contact general any singular a few references There are cause and intended harm. deposition bring which tied her into the What is forbidden is the intent to about before, day but she not relate where the result which invades does another’s interests from, Frey more to statements came a manner the law forbids. these (S.D.1992). Kouf, the rumors 484 N.W.2d point, how either stated repeated an affidavit in them. Not even victim has show that the actor or summary judg- to the motion for resistance (a) to cause a harmful offen- [intended] or Upon regard. filed in this ment was person contact sive with the of the record, of the the trial court was cor- state person, or a third other or an imminent dismissing any allegations of slander rect and, contact, apprehension of such a basically, shown Howe has not even (b) an offensive contact with the McDougall, rumors were false. Tibke v. directly indirectly the other results. (S.D.1992) (failure to raise issue (Second) § Restatement of Torts slander). falsity fatal to claim for battery question Germane Assoc., v. All Dakota Miessner Ins. (Second) In Restatement Torts consent. (S.D.1994), this Court § “willingness is defined as a consent require “both held libel and slander that [the *5 fact for to occur.” 892A conduct Section prove plaintiff] that the Defendants made a ” goes then on discuss the effect of consent. unprivileged publication.’ ‘false More- over, plaintiff when the to set “failed forth (1) effectively who One con- consents to facts specific genuine which create a issue of of duct another intended his to invade Summary judgment fact.... material (her) interests cannot recover in an complaint proper.” Id. at 204. Howe in action of tort for for the conduct or alleges that Reiman told she was others resulting harm from it. walking around the Mansion while nude and defining “effectively,” In the word Re- others touch and have sexual contact by stating: statement continues Yet, by her. with there is no evidence Howe (2) effective, (a) by To be consent must be resistance to the motion that told capacity has the one who to consent anyone anything.1 allegations Mere complaint adequate support are not question is no So there request summary judgment future eases of the
denial state, this a who touches another Lalley Safway the motion once is made. battery. Inc., an offensive manner is liable for Scaffolds, a supra. Steel If a or a male touches female on her breasts 2. genitalia buttocks or kisses her without ASSAULT consent, subject he is to a civil action a battery regardless Howe claims she suffered civil as of how well intentioned. case, at the sault hands Reiman. cause Had such conduct occurred in this Rei- specific subject the victim action need not show man would to an action be for assault occurred, part, part actually, along The concurrence in 1. dissent focuses went these When lines. points two incident, on which need part The first clarification. po- her mother of Reeves told point writing is that of the which states: police The lice were called. conducted an initial only “Reiman was the have one who could start- gave police interview with Reiman. Here he some of ed reason these rumors.” There no factual misinformation about what occurred. When the given for this There were conclusion. facts, police came back better armed with the he Reeves, actually four males in the who mansion. (Reiman) he did admitted not tell the truth bears burden to show some evidence as to police Telling police first time. rumors, never false has forth wrong story may stupid, may get you be it any anyone evidence that about Reiman told crime, trouble, might get you charged it with a mansion, what occurred in the alone that he let publication supports defa- but it is not anything, told false stories. palpably If the stories were referring that is what mation. And Reiman was goes true. But this to intentional inflic- deposition, page 13 of his told distress, to on not that he of emotional not defamation. tion stories about "others” false Reeves. writing by proclaiming that Rei- continues admitted he made What man false statements. her. But the damages caused ones who had contact with any resulting But, probably got of this case lies state of the facts shows she the essence conduct. out, thus, determining passed something Reiman touched not in whether these after she consented to his in whether she she did not consent to. We are not unmind- touching. But, admits contact. ful Reiman has been sued. facially concedes the consent: Howe according to the criteria in Restatement (Second) Scott; 18(a), § up of Torts intent to cause Q: I mean there forcing you to do that? was he harmful or offensive contact with a third person may personal liability. be the basis No. A. genuinely dispute Matters are as to the Q: right; it was consensual be- Is nature and extent of the consent and the you up until this tween the two of given. facts under which it was point in time? ... say I didn’t no. INFLICTION INTENTIONAL OF point is whether she had the The next EMOTIONAL DISTRESS aspect are capacity to consent. On this aspect The final of Howe’s case points to remember. One is several upon a that Reiman centers claim intention consuming alcohol. was not a novice to ally upon her. inflicted emotional distress and knew its effects had done before action four are For this cause of elements much though had not drunk as even prima needed to establish facie case: that she had dated The next fact is before. before and had consumed alcohol amounting 1. An act to ex- defendant Further, voluntarily left her with him. conduct; treme night consumed alcohol home that (or recklessness) Intent on the pickup truck while drove Reiman’s plaintiff to cause severe the defendant *6 they around Pierre before went to the Man distress; emotional fact At no time did Reiman hide the sion. 3. The defendant’s conduct was serving that he was her alcohol. On distress; plaintiffs cause-in-fact disagreement a factual other hand there is plaintiff suffered an extreme dis- The over how much Howe had to drink. The abling response emotional to defen- practice had a drinks males stated she few dant’s conduct. with little or no alcohol before she to heavily right passed before she out. 906; drink Nel- McDougall, Tibke 479 N.W.2d at v. liquor dispute rang The amount of is also Inc., Ass’n, Development v. son Web Water ing glass from shots in a each time to several (S.D.1993); 698-99 Bass N.W.2d glass liquor. dispute a full There is a Rest, Happy Inc. 507 N.W.2d liquor much whether Howe knew how (S.D.1993); Valley Hosp. Petersen v. Sioux keep glass. Moreover this Court has to each (tort (S.D.1992) Ass’n., juvenile, in mind that this was a and while infliction of emotional distress of intentional novice, not a a factual issue has been raised behavior). generally, includes reckless See given liquor so she as to whether she was Annotation, of Intentional In- Modern Status give prob would be to consent. The unable Independent As fliction of Mental Distress problem of lem revolves around the central (1985). Tort; “Outrage,” 4th 998 38 A.L.R. capacity give to consent and her mental outrageous gives rise to The conduct by whether this was overborne Reiman’s con which exceeds ‘all the tort “must be conduct If a duct alone or concert with others. by society usually decent bounds tolerated jury that her consent was would determine especially of a nature calculated and which is recovery given, then no can be made. cause, cause, and does mental distress of very ... The initial determi- again, serious kind.’ And there is the unresolved issue scratches, bruises, conduct is dealing nation of whether the defendant’s with the and other enough permit recovery belongs hurt extreme Howe suffered. None of the males McDougall, deposed anything although court.” Tibke v. know about the trial passed after Howe out were the at 907. *
As conduct Howe submits There is a conflict the evidence about whether Reiman Howe on these factors: the floor or directly in his Mend’s bed. * invited and took Howe to an foregoing representations, On the factual unchaperoned provided where he much way discussion could ensue all from encouraged guzzle drinking her to with and commentary upon group the conduct of a glass of Lord Calvert. shots teenagers whose actions were unbridled and * Reiman observed that Howe was intoxi- uncaring queries juve- about the mores of cated, then undressed her and had sexual present day society. inquiry niles in our Our contact with her himself while she was in might upon also focus to which extent that state. judicial system protect person should * only partially While she was nude and against her own faults and failures and dam- conscious, brought her out into age by caused another in contrast hallway of the Mansion in front of two of his need of to make errors and mis- friends, allowing freely both of them to ob- process takes as of the maturation body. serve her nude evening life.2 Had the activities of this end- ed when Reiman and * Howe were alone Reiman took Howe to the bathroom bedroom, questionable it is whether a claim request- while she was in this state and even damage summary judg- could survive a help ed that his two friends come him be- challenge. ment As we have noted earlier cause Howe could not sit herself. Howe left her home of her own volition. She * pres- the two other While friends were left because of an invitation from Reiman. ent, Howe, pulled or Reiman then “assisted” liquor voluntarily. engaged She drank nude, hallway still down the into the bedroom being in sexual contact with the consent dis- of another friend and left her there in a puted. Even some of the events which passed out condition so that he could drive transported give later do not rise to a cause around. Reiman knew that his friend had depositions of action. The are clear that sexually body transmittable lice. Reiman’s initially came to the bedroom door bed, Mend and Howe were later seen help herself and needed to the bathroom. “making out.” gave help. her this It was not a * plan, expose as claimed following morning, Toni asked Rei- her nude state to two other males her, happened man what to her and he told *7 hallway. liquor She was sick from “Oh, and need- just nothing. It a get- small little ed to use the bathroom. together. a We drank little bit and it was nothing worry about.” He and his Mend However, this, beyond the next series immediately experiences discussed their with of events does seem to that enter area de night, investigators her that and he later told outrageous fined as “extreme and conduct.” that his Mend had penetrating admitted to And the conduct this Court now refers to is manually. He testified later he had Howe, when Reiman took not back to the lying investigators, attorney been to the came, same bedroom from where she special prosecutor. and the put took her farther down the hall and either * n Reiman later observed his Mend hav- her while nude on the floor or in bed ing nothing sexual contact with her and did another male. When Reiman looked into time, stop though it even he knew that she was this second bedroom at a later very body intoxicated and that he had lice. was in the bed with this male. Sexual inter- liability clearly 2. The does not extend to mere ate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law insults, threats, indignities, every annoyances, petty op- to intervene in case where someone’s feel ings are hurt. pression, rough edges There must still be freedom to or other trivialities. The express unflattering opinion, safety an and some society good of our are still in need of a of deal through valve must be left which tem down, irascible meantime, filing plaintiff and in the must pers may relatively blow off harmless steam.... necessarily expected required and be to be hard- (Second) Torts, 46, rough language, § ened to a certain amount of of Restatement Comment definitely to occasional that are acts inconsider- d.
85 might be con- course occurred. While incident caused at least Donald Leaon severe emotional an distress. sent between Reiman and issue certainly arises about consent between Howe Id. at 873. may put and the male. Howe have herself Especially pertinent to this case is the voluntary into the situation with Reiman on a following language in Comment d of the Re- But, engage basis. her consent to drink and (Second) Torts, § statement of 46: in activities with Reiman is not a transferable Liability has found been where the consent; posture at least at this she denies it outrageous conduct has been so in charac- also claimed she did not consent was and has ter, degree, and so extreme as to to the intercourse. beyond possible decency, all bounds of While the cause action addressed is atrocious, regarded utterly to be very encompassing language, the case law in a community. intolerable civilized Gen- developed parameters. Rwple has some erally, the ease is one which the recita- (S.D.1984) Brooks, N.W.2d average tion the facts to an member of community phone would arouse his this court held a man’s obscene resent- actor, against ment and lead him to outrageous calls to woman was conduct. exclaim, “Outrageous!” years Murray, Two later in Ruane v. (S.D.1986), reversing We conclude that Reiman’s conduct is ex- granting summary judgment, order enough permit treme this matter to be outrageous Court held that extreme and con- presented jury. Nelson v. Web Water duct arose from a male landlord’s conduct Ass’n, Development when he made sexual advances towards And, conclusion, because of this we are com- knowing psychologi- female tenant she was reverse, pelled part, the decision of the cally incapable resisting these demands. granting summary judgment. trial court in Thus, outrageous, if words are would conduct previously haveWe concluded that the mat- (while intoxicated) into ter of the assault and whether a consent jury occurred should also be submitted to a position being sexually used anoth- guidance for a As decision. to the trial court outrageous? also be er not remand, upon we note that there is a distinc- appellant Washington Leaon v. tion between false statements which are the (Minn.1986) County, 397 N.W.2d which, basis of defamation statements Supreme convinced the Minnesota Court that true, although are the basis of the tort of subjected qualified the action he was outrageous flowing conduct. All conduct the tort of intentional infliction of emotional conduct, outrageous from the even the re- per- distress. It a situation events, where one peating of the can constitute a basis involuntarily put position damages. son had been It would do little to deter if conduct the actor could broad- where another sexual contact with him. *8 However, impunity. cast his activities with it gone stag party Leaon had to a for a co- must first be established that the conduct married, worker who was to be but arrived outrageous in fact and the actor was the swing. late after the was in full Once published these activities to oth- stage inside he was taken to the where he damages may against ers before be awarded was forced to lie down on his back awith publication. damages the actor for the His nude, dollar bill in A his mouth. female conduct; should be is limited he not and, vagina dancer touched her to his face And, insurer for the conduct of others. hand, with her removed the dollar bill. “Hu- kept publication should be in mind that the distressed, miliated and much Leaon left the damages. the conduct not for the basis party soon afterwards.” Id. at 869. damages Rather the basis for Howe’s must The trier of fact could find that the inci- proof disabling in lie her of what emotional stag party dent at the and response directly suffered from Reiman’s (or reckless), also, See, perhaps, McDougall, intentional and total conduct. Tibke v. Wilson, previously 212,157. at 906 and the eases cited see 83 S.D. at N.W.2d at opinion. erroneously in the trial court determined the genuine merits of the A defamation claim. part This case is affirmed reversed presented issue of material fact was because part proceed- and remanded further people day. knew the incident the next ings. They pointing calling at Howe questioned chastity. names that Obvi- AMUNDSON, J., MILLER, C.J., ously, people these heard about these inci- HENDERSON, Justice, concur. Retired originating dents from sources with Reiman. SABERS, J., part likely concurs result and Reiman was the source of some of part. rumors, falsity dissents these rumors.1 The of those nude, walking that Howe was around volun- KEAN, WUEST, J., Judge, for Circuit tarily engaging touching others in her and disqualified. penetrated digitally, pres- that she had been KONENKAMP, J., having not been a genuine ents issues of material fact. member of the Court at the time this action deposition, At his Reiman admitted that he participate. was submitted did not made false statements about Howe to others. publication He admitted the of these false- SABERS, (concurring Justice in result in why hoods. When asked he made these part dissenting part). misstatements, he said because he was I concur in result on both issues but dis- Deposition afraid.2 Reiman at 13. trial The sent on defamation. ruling court’s states that the “emotional dis- tress suffered was as a result of [Howe] considering summary When motion for rampant rumors that started to circu- judgment, the evidence must be viewed ” Ruling, late .... Trial Court’s at 3. The light nonmoving most favorable to the question veracity of the source and of those Co., party. Ry. v. N. Wilson Great 83 S.D. presented jury. rumors should be (1968). 207, 212, All burden is on defendant to show doubts are to be resolved in favor of the genuine Dept, are no issues of material fact. nonmoving party. Summary judgment Id. (S.D. Thiewes, Rev. v. 448 N.W.2d remedy appropriate is an extreme not 1989). Defendant has failed to meet his bur- disposing of factual issues as a substitute respect. den in this Eckrich, Koeniguer for trial. 422 N.W.2d (S.D.1988). 600, 601 This matter is filled with factual matters disputes. Only jury can resolve claim, By dismissing the defamation disputes factual such as this. usurped jury. trial court the function of the viewing light tragic Rather than the evidence This matter has been and embar- non-moving party rassing most favorable to the for all of these families I involved. motion, required summary judgment temptation strong under a sense a on the of the boy high 1. Another at the school testified that he to law is sufficient for enforcement defamation. penetrated digi- genuine had heard had that Howe been A factual issue of the source of that tally night: presented by at the Mansion that rumor has been Howe and the summary judg- defamation claim should survive anybody directly Q. you Did tell Koeniguer, 422 ment. N.W.2d at 601. [penetrated digitally] night? Nobody directly told me. 2. Reiman testified as follows: Q. Who hear did? *9 names, any just Q. you anybody I [he] A. don't remember I re- Did ever tell happened up [digitally penetrated] member there and that her? Yes, Toni was the victim. A. I did. Asher, Deposition Cody Why you say anybody? Q. Allen 13. story police, very Reiman told this exact later A. Because I was scared at the time. Q. admitting man, Deposition [he] that it was false. of Rei- And fact did ever tell that he in. penetrated] likely [digitally at 13. He was the source of this false her? No, high rumor that circulated around the school. he did not. publication Deposition Reiman's admitted of the false rumor of Reiman -at 13. by any possible to end it as soon as court wrongful denial of
available means —even justifies the jury trial. But the end never
means. summary judgment may grant thing good to be a on the defamation
seem
count, deny plaintiff right it would day jury trial. It would be a sad for South chapter
Dakota if the final is the denial of the jury right to a trial.
Constitutional thing
I this is a difficult for the know involved, swept un- but it cannot be
families rug. properly It will come to rest
der the jury trial. after right guarantees the to a
The Constitution
jury trial —the trial court denied it. guarantees that courts
The Constitution open trial court closed it.
shall remain —the for a fair should reverse and remand
We
trial on all issues. INC., LUMBER, Dakota
US South
Corporation, Roger Duba and Sandra
Duba, Appellants, Plaintiffs and FISHER, F. Defendant
Charles Appellee.
No. 18402.
Supreme Court of South Dakota. 25,
Argued April 1994.
Reassigned Aug. 1994.
Decided Oct.
Rehearing Denied Nov.