Peery v. Department of Agriculture

Decision Date15 January 1987
Docket NumberNo. 15350,15350
Citation402 N.W.2d 695
PartiesC. Ray PEERY, Grievant and Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, State of South Dakota, Respondent and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

James E. Carlon of Gors, Braun, Carlon, Smith and Zastrow, Pierre, for grievant and appellant.

Mark W. Barnett of Schmidt, Schroyer, Colwill Zinter & Barnett, P.C., Pierre, for respondent and appellee.

HEEGE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court affirming the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the South Dakota Career Service Commission.The Commission had affirmed the termination of employment of appellantC. Ray Peery, a career service employee of the South Dakota Department of Agriculture.We affirm.

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture terminated Peery's employment on January 25, 1984.Peery had been employed by the Department for approximately ten years as the administrator of the pesticide program.The decision to discharge Peery was made by his supervisor, the Director of Regulatory Services, Vern Brakke.Peery's employment was terminated for cause and he filed a grievance.Peery's supervisor and the Secretary of Agriculture each refused to reinstate Peery.

Peery then appealed to the Career Service Commission, which convened a contested case hearing.At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission issued a memorandum decision in favor of the Department and entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting the memorandum decision.Peery appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Commission, adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission, and entered "supplemental" Findings and Conclusions.

At the hearing before the Commission Peery called as an expert witness, Art Losey, who had extensive experience as a personnel manager.Peery sought to elicit from Losey an opinion as to the propriety of the discharge of Peery by his supervisor.Peery assigns as error the refusal of the Commission, and ultimately of the circuit court, to permit Losey to express his opinion on this subject.

It should be noted that the opinion solicited embraces the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.It should likewise be noted that when South Dakota adopted its rules of evidence, patterned after the federal rules, it did not adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 704.The federal rule provides in part that "testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact."Under the South Dakota rule, the admissibility of a claimed expert's opinion is within the discretion of the trial court.SDCL 19-15-2;Buckley v. Fredericks, 291 N.W.2d 770(S.D.1980).We find no error in the refusal to permit the expert witness to express his opinion on this matter.

Peery also claims that he should have had a pretermination hearing before the Department of Agriculture or its Division Director.Initially, Peery did not raise this issue before the circuit court.Instead, Peery commenced a Sec. 1983 action in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.After the commencement of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • State v. Moeller
    • United States
    • Mayo 22, 1996
  • State v. Barber
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • Julio 31, 1996
    ...qualifications and admissibility of expert testimony. This Court will not reverse the admission of expert testimony absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Hill, 463 N.W.2d 674 (S.D.1990); Peery v. Department of Agriculture, 402 N.W.2d 695 (S.D.1987); State v. Iron Shell, 301 N.W.2d 669 ¶36 At the time of trial, Johnson had worked as a drug enforcement agent for over twenty-three years, and he had taken several courses in drug investigations. He had...
  • Schroeder v. Department of Social Services
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • Mayo 31, 1996
    ...time periods when she received an unsatisfactory evaluation. Work reviews are not conclusive proof of satisfactory performance, but merely serve as evidence to be weighed along with other testimony and exhibits. Peery v. South Dakota Dept. of Agriculture, 402 N.W.2d 695, 697 (S.D.1987). The Commission properly allowed DSS to submit specific factual instances of Schroeder's misbehavior during those periods when she received satisfactory evaluations. Considering the entire record, we...
  • Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • Diciembre 31, 1996
    ...experts to form their opinion.) ¶23 "[A]dmissibility of an expert's opinion is within the trial court's discretion." Application of Widdison, 539 N.W.2d 671, 676 (S.D.1995) (citing SDCL 19-15-2; Peery v. Dep't of Agriculture, 402 N.W.2d 695, 696 (S.D.1987); Buckley v. Fredericks, 291 N.W.2d 770, 771 (S.D.1980)). We will not reverse a trial court's decision "absent a clear showing of an abuse of Id. (citing State v. Hill, 463 N.W.2d 674, 676 (S.D.1990);...
  • Get Started for Free