 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hart v. Miller4/19/2000
[ ] Miller strenuously denies any improper conduct towards Hart. It is undisputed that Miller never touched Hart, never specifically mentioned sex, and did not overtly threaten her in any way.
[ ] Hart further claims that approximately two weeks later, on March 2, 1996, Miller approached her in his patrol vehicle while she was walking home at 1:00 a.m. Hart alleges Miller approached her from behind, then did a U-turn and came back to ask her where she was going. Hart responded she was heading home and Miller then left the area. Miller also denies this incident.
[ ] Hart subsequently filed her complaint in the First Judicial Circuit against Miller alleging false imprisonment, assault, invasion of privacy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of her civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. Hart filed an action against Supervisors based upon conspiracy, negligent retention and supervision, and violation of her civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. Miller made a motion for summary judgment, while Supervisors filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court gave a notice of intent to treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to SDCL 15-6-12(b). The order granting summary judgment was entered on January 22, 1999.
[ ] Hart appeals raising the following issues for our consideration:
1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Miller on Hart's § 1983 claim.
2. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Supervisors on Hart's § 1983 claim.
3. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Miller on Hart's state law claims.
4. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Supervisors on Hart's state law claims of conspiracy and negligent supervision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] Our standard of review for a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment is well settled. As we recently stated in Mattson v. Rachetto:
Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. Bego v. Gordon, 407 NW2d 801, 804 (SD 1987). All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. Morgan v. Baldwin, 450 NW2d 783, 785 (SD 1990). The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 SD 207, 212, 157 NW2d 19, 21 (1968). 1999 SD 51, , 591 NW2d 814, 817 (quoting Shuck v. Perkins County, 1998 SD 32, , 577 NW2d 584, 586). Summary judgment is a preferred process to dispose of meritless claims. Horne v. Crozier, 1997 SD 65, , 565 NW2d 50, 52.
[ ] Whether Miller and Supervisors are shielded by sovereign immunity is a question of law, reviewed de novo, with no deference given to the trial court's legal conclusions. Hansen v. SD Dept. of Transp., 1998 SD 109, , 584 NW2d 881, 883 (citing Wilson v. Hogan, 473 NW2d 492, 493 (SD 1991)).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[ ] 1. Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Miller on Hart's § 1983 claim.
[ ] In its grant of summary judgment, the trial court found both Miller and Supervisors were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. This Court has rece
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|