de novo standard in South Dakota

2021“Under the de novo standard of review, we give no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions of law.” Id. (citing Sherburn v. Patterson Farms, Inc., 1999 S.D. 47 , ¶ 4, 593 N.W.2d 414, 416 ).

2015“Conclusions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard, giving no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions of law.” Id. (quoting Sherburn v. Patterson Farms, Inc., 1999 S.D. 47 , ¶4, 593 N.W.2d 414, 416 ).

2026Under the circumstances, we decline to review (continued . . .) -4- #31074 Analysis and Decision [¶14.] “We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.” Zochert v. Protective Life Ins., 2018 S.D. 84 , ¶ 18, 921 N.W.2d 479, 486 (quoting Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins., 2018 S.D. 52 , ¶ 9, 915 N.W.2d 697, 700 ).

2026“When conducting a de novo review, we give no deference to the circuit court’s decision.” Id. (citation modified).

2009NOTES [1] "We review the determination of whether the 180 day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard." State v. Sparks, 1999 SD 115, ¶ 5 , 600 N.W.2d 550, 553 (citing State v. Pellegrino, 1998 SD 39, ¶ 23 , 577 N.W.2d 590, 599 ; State v. Fowler, 1996 SD 79, ¶ 10 , 552 N.W.2d 391, 393 ; State v. Cooper, 421 N.W.2d 67, 69 (S.D.1988)). [2] (4) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and

2009"We review the determination of whether the 180 day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.” State v. Sparks, 1999 SD 115, ¶ 5 , 600 N.W.2d 550, 553 (citing State v. Pellegrino, 1998 SD 39, ¶ 23 , 577 N.W.2d 590, 599 ; State v. Fowler, 1996 SD 79, ¶ 10 , 552 N.W.2d 391, 393 ; State v. Cooper, 421 N.W.2d 67, 69 (S.D.1988)). . (4) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and hearing on

2008“This Court interprets statutes under a de novo standard of review without deference to the decision of the trial court.” In re Estate of Jetter, 1997 SD 125, ¶ 10 , 570 N.W.2d 26, 28 .

2008“This Court interprets statutes under a de novo standard of review without deference to the decision of the trial court.” In re Estate of Jetter, 1997 SD 125, ¶ 10 , 570 N.W.2d 26, 28 .

2008“However, questions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard with no deference given to the trial court’s conclusions.” Id. (citing City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc., 2000 SD 29, ¶ 9 , 607 N.W.2d 22, 25 (citations omitted)).

2008“However, questions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard with no deference given to the trial court’s conclusions.” Id. (citing City of Deadwood v. Summit, Inc., 2000 SD 29, ¶ 9 , 607 N.W.2d 22, 25 (citations omitted)).

2021On appeal, our task “is to determine only -6- #28671 whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Id. [¶16.] “An appeal asserting an infringement of a constitutional right is also an issue of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Benson v. State, 2006 S.D. 8 , ¶ 39, 710 N.W.2d 131, 145 (citing State v. Dillon, 2001 S.D. 97 , ¶ 12, 632 N.W.2d 37, 43 ).

2021“Under the de novo standard of review, we give no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions of law.” Id. (citing Sherburn v. Patterson Farms, Inc., 1999 S.D. 47 , ¶ 4, 593 N.W.2d 414, 416 ).

2010“Statutory interpretation is a question of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Discover Bank v. Stanley, 2008 SD 111, ¶ 15 , 757 N.W.2d 756, 761 (citations omitted). ‘When the language in a statute is clear, certain, and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and [this] Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.” Id.

2010“Statutory interpretation is a question of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Discover Bank v. Stanley, 2008 SD 111, ¶ 15 , 757 N.W.2d 756, 761 (citations omitted). ‘When the language in a statute is clear, certain, and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and [this] Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.” Id.

2015STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 7.] “This Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard.” State v. Ludemann, 2010 S.D. 9 , ¶ 14, 778 N.W.2d 618, 622 (quoting State v. Madsen, 2009 S.D. 5 , ¶ 11, 760 N.W.2d 370, 374 ).

2014State v. Ludemann, 2010 S.D. 9 , ¶ 14, 778 N.W.2d 618, 622 (stating that we “review[ ] the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard [of review]”) (quoting State v. Madsen, 2009 S.D. 5 , ¶ 11, 760 N.W.2d 370, 374 ).

2026Under the circumstances, we decline to review (continued . . .) -4- #31074 Analysis and Decision [¶14.] “We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.” Zochert v. Protective Life Ins., 2018 S.D. 84 , ¶ 18, 921 N.W.2d 479, 486 (quoting Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins., 2018 S.D. 52 , ¶ 9, 915 N.W.2d 697, 700 ).

2024Management Agreement [¶41.] “We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.” Zochert, 2018 S.D. 84 , ¶ 18, 921 N.W.2d at 486 (citation omitted).

2024“This Court reviews questions of law under the de novo standard with no deference afforded the circuit court’s decision.” Lewis & Clark Rural Water Sys., Inc. v. Seeba, 2006 S.D. 7 , ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d 824, 830 (citing Block v. Drake, 2004 S.D. 72 , ¶ 8, 681 N.W.2d 460, 463 ). 1.

2022Indeed, we have recognized the common-law concepts of 8. “[Q]uestions of statutory interpretation and application . . . ‘are questions of law’ and reviewed ‘under the de novo standard with no deference afforded to the circuit court’s decision.’” Schafer, 2006 S.D. 106 , ¶ 5, 725 N.W.2d at 244 (quoting Lewis & Clark Rural Water Sys., Inc. v. Seeba, 2006 S.D. 7 , ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d 824, 830 ). -15- #29352 implied easements and prescriptive easements.

2022“The court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but we give no deference to the court’s conclusions of law.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 (quoting State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 ). “[O]nce those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2020Whether the circuit court erred when it denied Vortherms’s motion to suppress the warrantless blood draw. [¶18.] “We review the court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress involving an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 .

2009“This Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard.” Bowker, 2008 SD 61, ¶ 17 , 754 N.W.2d at 62 (citing State v. Stanga, 2000 SD 129, ¶ 8 , 617 N.W.2d 486, 488 (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1375 (9th Cir.1993); State v. Hirning, 1999 SD 53, ¶ 9 , 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 )).

2009“This Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard.” Bowker, 2008 SD 61, ¶ 17 , 754 N.W.2d at 62 (citing State v. Stanga, 2000 SD 129, ¶ 8 , 617 N.W.2d 486, 488 (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 , 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); United States v. Khan, 993 F.2d 1368, 1375 (9th Cir.1993); State v. Hirning, 1999 SD 53, ¶ 9 , 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 )).

2002“Conclusions of law, on the other hand, are reviewed under a de novo standard, giving no deference to the trial court’s conclusion of law.” Id.

1999Under the de novo standard, we give “no deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law.” Engelhart v. Kramer, 1997 SD 124, ¶ 8 , 570 N.W.2d 550, 552 (citing Jasper v. Smith, 540 N.W.2d 399, 401 (S.D.1995)). [¶ 26.] The trial court found that the action was not barred by the statute of limitations.

2005However, “we review findings based on deposition testimony and documentary evidence under a de novo' standard of review.” Grauel v. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 2000 SD 145, ¶ 7 , 619 N.W.2d 260, 262 (quoting Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Construction, 1998 SD 27, ¶ 12 , 576 N.W.2d 237, 240 ).

2005However, “we review findings based on deposition testimony and documentary evidence under a de novo' standard of review.” Grauel v. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 2000 SD 145, ¶ 7 , 619 N.W.2d 260, 262 (quoting Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Construction, 1998 SD 27, ¶ 12 , 576 N.W.2d 237, 240 ).

2009"We review the determination of whether the 180 day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.” State v. Sparks, 1999 SD 115, ¶ 5 , 600 N.W.2d 550, 553 (citing State v. Pellegrino, 1998 SD 39, ¶ 23 , 577 N.W.2d 590, 599 ; State v. Fowler, 1996 SD 79, ¶ 10 , 552 N.W.2d 391, 393 ; State v. Cooper, 421 N.W.2d 67, 69 (S.D.1988)). . (4) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and hearing on

2009"We review the determination of whether the 180 day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.” State v. Sparks, 1999 SD 115, ¶ 5 , 600 N.W.2d 550, 553 (citing State v. Pellegrino, 1998 SD 39, ¶ 23 , 577 N.W.2d 590, 599 ; State v. Fowler, 1996 SD 79, ¶ 10 , 552 N.W.2d 391, 393 ; State v. Cooper, 421 N.W.2d 67, 69 (S.D.1988)). . (4) The following periods shall be excluded in computing the time for trial: (a) The period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to an examination and hearing on

2009SDCL 58-11-29 provides in relevant part: Binders or other contracts for temporary insurance may be made orally or in writing, and shall be deemed to include all the usual terms of the policy as to which the binder was given together with such applicable endorsements as are designated in the binder, except as superseded by the clear and express terms of the binder. [¶ 21.] As this Court has often noted, “[statutory interpretation is a question of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Discover Bank v. Stanley, 2008 SD 111, ¶ 15 , 757 N.W.2d 756, 761 (citing Martinmaas v. Enge

2009SDCL 58-11-29 provides in relevant part: Binders or other contracts for temporary insurance may be made orally or in writing, and shall be deemed to include all the usual terms of the policy as to which the binder was given together with such applicable endorsements as are designated in the binder, except as superseded by the clear and express terms of the binder. [¶ 21.] As this Court has often noted, “[statutory interpretation is a question of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Discover Bank v. Stanley, 2008 SD 111, ¶ 15 , 757 N.W.2d 756, 761 (citing Martinmaas v. Enge

2000Id.

1998“We review conclusions of law under a de novo standard.” Jasper v. Smith, 540 N.W.2d 399, 401 (S.D.1995) (citing Cordell v. Codington County, 526 N.W.2d 115, 116 (S.D.1994)).

2023Standard of Review [¶16.] “We review issues regarding a court’s jurisdiction as questions of law under the de novo standard of review.” Daktronics, Inc. v. LBW Tech Co., Inc., 2007 S.D. 80 , ¶ 2, 737 N.W.2d 413, 416 (quoting Grajczyk v. Tasca, 2006 S.D. 55 , ¶ 8, 717 N.W.2d 624, 627 ).

2010STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 7.] “ We review issues regarding a court’s jurisdiction as questions of law under the de novo standard of review.’ ” Daktronics, Inc. v. LBW Tech Co. Inc., 2007 SD 80, ¶ 2 , 737 N.W.2d 413, 416 (quoting Grajczyk v. Tasca, 2006 SD 55, ¶ 8 , 717 N.W.2d 624, 627 ).

2019Whether Officer Loen seized Sharpfish within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. [¶23.] “We review the court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress involving an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 (quoting State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 14, 851 N.W.2d 719, 723 ). “[F]indings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard[.]” Id. (quoting Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 14, 851 N.W.2d at 723 ).

2019Whether Officer Loen seized Sharpfish within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. [¶23.] “We review the court’s grant or denial of a motion to suppress involving an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 (quoting State v. Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 14, 851 N.W.2d 719, 723 ). “[F]indings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard[.]” Id. (quoting Smith, 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 14, 851 N.W.2d at 723 ).

2013Dept. of Military & Veterans Affairs, 2000 S.D. 36 , ¶ 6, 607 N.W.2d 596, 599 ).

2008Id.

2024A city manager may serve with any of the forms of government.” SDCL 9-2-3. -5- #30008, #30163 Standard of Review [¶12.] The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. 5 “We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.” Ries v. JM Custom Homes, LLC, 2022 S.D. 52, ¶ 14 , 980 N.W.2d 217 , 222 (quoting Wyman v. Bruckner, 2018 S.D. 17 , ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 170, 174 ).

2024Analysis and Decision [¶13.] This Court reviews “a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.” Ries v. JM Custom Homes, LLC, 2022 S.D. 52, ¶ 14 , 980 N.W.2d 217 , 222 (quoting Wyman v. Bruckner, 2018 S.D. 17 , ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 170, 174 ).

2015STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 7.] “This Court reviews the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard.” State v. Ludemann, 2010 S.D. 9 , ¶ 14, 778 N.W.2d 618, 622 (quoting State v. Madsen, 2009 S.D. 5 , ¶ 11, 760 N.W.2d 370, 374 ).

2014State v. Ludemann, 2010 S.D. 9 , ¶ 14, 778 N.W.2d 618, 622 (stating that we “review[ ] the denial of a motion to suppress alleging a violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard [of review]”) (quoting State v. Madsen, 2009 S.D. 5 , ¶ 11, 760 N.W.2d 370, 374 ).

2024Furthermore, the circuit court concluded that questioning could continue because Rudloff’s references to procuring the assistance of a lawyer during the interview were ambiguous or equivocal. [¶26.] “We review ‘the denial of a motion to suppress based on the alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard of review.’ We review any underlying factual findings of the circuit court ‘under the clearly erroneous standard.’” State v. Red Cloud, 2022 S.D. 17, ¶ 21 , 972 N.W.2d 517 , 525–26 (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Angle, 2021

2018The State claims the circuit court properly relied on both Officer Coppersmith's testimony and the video evidence. [¶ 9.] "We review the denial of [a] motion to suppress based on the alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right as a question of law by applying the de novo standard of review." State v. Doap Deng Chuol , 2014 S.D. 33 , ¶ 19, 849 N.W.2d 255 , 261. "[W]e review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard." Id. (quoting State v. Lamont , 2001 S.D. 92 , ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 603 , 607 ).

2023“Statutory interpretation and application are questions of law, and are reviewed by this Court under the de novo standard of review.” Id. (quoting Rotenberger v. Burghduff, 2007 S.D. 7 , ¶ 8, 727 N.W.2d 291, 294 ).

2021Whether a defendant is guaranteed a preliminary hearing when charged [by complaint or information] with an offense punishable as a felony. [¶11.] “Statutory interpretation and application are questions of law, and are reviewed by this Court under the de novo standard of review.” State v. Powers, 2008 S.D. 119 , ¶ 7, 758 N.W.2d 918, 920 . [¶12.] Rus argues the plain language of SDCL 23A-4-3 entitles a defendant to a preliminary hearing if he or she is charged with an offense that is punishable as a felony.