Court Opinion

ID: 9658102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:46:33.680338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.500915
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Acting Chief Justice
(specially concurring).
Although I agree with the result found in the majority opinion, namely that Appellants are entitled to a jury trial on their malpractice claim, I cannot agree with citing the Olson case in the Minnesota Appeals Court in 1984. Such a citation strips away stare decisis in Skoglund v. Staab, 312 N.W.2d 29, 30 (S.D.1981). We need not base this decision on Minnesota authority. This Court has, historically, taken a different posture:
The right to a jury trial is guaranteed both litigants in Article VI, § 6 of the South Dakota Constitution and SDCL 15-6-38(a), (b). This right, however, does not exist in all civil cases. In cases where the pleadings seek equitable relief or where the legal relief is incidental, a jury trial is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Skoglund v. Staab, 312 N.W.2d 29 (S.D.1981); citing, Lounsberry v. Kelly, 32 S.D. 160, 142 N.W. 180 (1913) on rehearing 32 S.D. 456, 143 N.W. 369 (1913); Thomas v. Ryan, 24 S.D. 71, 123 N.W. 68 (1909). (Emphasis supplied mine).
The aforesaid quote is found in Nizielski v. Tvinnereim, 453 N.W.2d 831, 832, 833 (S.D.1990), Henderson, J., author. We must not hurry our decisions through this Court, lest we be found wanting at the trough of knowledge, many years hence. Spontaneous and loyal support of our preconceptions or precedent in this Court should be examined with a certain degree of skepticism only; however, one cannot carry skepticism to a foolish degree. Doing so will bring about contempt or disapproval of our belief in question. Reason and growth for a better rationalization should be our appellate guideposts. With those remarks in mind, I call to your attention a March 6, 1991, decision in this Court: First W. Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock Yards, 466 N.W.2d 853 (S.D.1991). Therein, E.W. Hertz, Acting Justice, writing for a unanimous court, cited Skoglund. At page 856, it is noted that the author reviewed the law in the United States and cast a modifying effect on Skoglund but Skoglund was not entirely tom asunder. In First W. Bank, we stated:
In examining the development of this rule, however, we note that the United States Supreme Court has abolished the requirement that a legal claim must not be incidental. In Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962), the Court held that in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the right to a jury trial of any legal issue raised by counterclaim in an equitable action cannot be denied, regardless of whether the legal issues presented are characterized as “incidental” to the equitable issues. Id. at 473, 82 S.Ct. at 897, 8 L.Ed.2d at 48. See Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). As a result, the analysis of whether a party raising a counterclaim in an equity action is entitled to a jury trial depends only on the nature of the counterclaim. If the relief sought is equitable, the decision of whether to empanel an advisory jury is wholly within the trial court’s discretion. Nizielski, at 833. If, however, the counterclaim seeks legal relief, the party raising a legal claim is entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right. Dairy Queen, 369 U.S. at 473, 82 S.Ct. at 897, 8 L.Ed.2d at *27948; United Transp. Union Local 74 v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 881 F.2d 282, 286 (6th Cir.1989), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 494 U.S. 558, 110 S.Ct. 1339, 108 L.Ed.2d 519 (1990). Our previous decisions imposing the additional requirement that the legal relief not be incidental are modified to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.
First W. Bank, supra, at 856.
Our scope of review is: Did the trial court abuse its discretion? Not based upon Minnesota law, but based upon South Dakota law which I have cited in this special writing, I concur, holding as a Justice of one, that the trial court abused its discretion. The latter is the proper scope of review herein, not a decision from our sister state of Minnesota.
Furthermore, this writer dissented in the Rosebud Sioux Tribe case in 1988 insisting that Attorney Strain was entitled to a jury trial where he was sued for $1,500,000 damages. This Court refused to give the lawyer a jury trial ** and it is ironic that this same Court now constitutionally posits S.D. Const, art. VI § 6, granting a jury trial for a lay person suing a lawyer. Badger Clark, South Dakota’s departed, great poet laureate, often wrote about the wind. Peter, Paul and Mary also sang about the wind. Yes, the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

 This Court upheld a refusal of the lower court to give him a jury trial. I vigorously asserted, inter alia, that lawyers were people, too, and were entitled to jury trials.