In the case State v. Jackson (S.D. 1985), the defendant and his wife operated a club and escort service, and they were accused of inducing employees to engage in prostitution. Two women testified that the defendant personally hired them, arranged for them to provide nude dancing for and to have sexual intercourse with male clients in motel rooms, and then transported them to these encounters. Based on their testimony, the defendant was convicted on two counts of inducing another to become or remain a prostitute.

Two decisions, Hughes I (S.D. 1999) and Hughes II (S.D. 2001), arise from the termination of an elementary school guidance counselor after a third-grade student alleged sexual abuse by her father. The guidance counselor, doubting the child’s credibility, spoke directly with the child’s parents instead of reporting the allegations to school authorities or child protective services. The guidance counselor later admitted this during an investigation in which the father was charged with abusing another child.

In the case Chicoine v. Chicoine (S.D. 1992), the parties were married for three years before the wife engaged in a series of openly same-sex affairs. The husband obtained a temporary custody order for their two children and later filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. The trial court awarded custody to the husband, granted the wife restricted visitation including unsupervised overnight visits, and imposed an additional condition prohibiting unrelated women or gay men from being present during the visitation.

In State v. Webster, the defendant was convicted of grand theft by deception and appealed, arguing that the State engaged in unconstitutional gender discrimination during jury selection. Specifically, the prosecution used seven of its ten peremptory strikes to remove female jurors. The defendant claimed this was based on the stereotype that women would be more sympathetic toward him because he was a young and attractive man.

The plaintiff worked for Hy-Vee Foods for 13 years, until her termination in 2000. During her employment, she overheard derogatory remarks by the store director, including phrases such as “fire the bitch” and comments about another employee’s breast reduction. She reported these incidents to human resources and to the director of operations. Shortly after reporting these incidents, the director of operations terminated her, allegedly stating that “it wasn’t a workable situation anymore.” The plaintiff brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.

In Davis v. Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., 2015 S.D. 34, the plaintiff was an employee of Wharf Resources. She applied for a different position within the company, but the position was ultimately offered to a male employee. The plaintiff later learned that her supervisor had made disparaging remarks about women not belonging in mining. She raised concerns about discrimination to management, and several weeks later, she was terminated for alleged disruptive and hostile behavior. She filed a gender discrimination and retaliation claim.

In Anderson v. S.D. Retirement System, the plaintiff sought survivor spouse benefits from the South Dakota Retirement System after the death of her wife, a long term partner, who had been a member of the system. The wife retired in 2012, when same-sex marriage was not legally recognized in South Dakota. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, the couple legally married.

South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 34-23A regulates the performance of abortions. Section 34-23A-1 defines key terms including “abortion,” “fetus,” and “medical emergency.” Abortion is defined as the “intentional termination of the life of a human being in the uterus.” This chapter establishes that abortions may only be performed in licensed facilities under specified conditions, it requires physi

Under South Dakota Codified Laws Chapter 22-17 Unauthorized Abortion, Section 6 makes it a crime to intentionally kill a human fetus by causing an injury to the mother. The injury must have been unauthorized under 34-23A, which contains the provisions for the performance of abortions.

Under South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-23-2 it is a Class 5 felony to promote prostitution by encouraging, inducing, or procuring another person to engage in the act, including causing a spouse, child, or dependent to become or remain a prostitute. Section 22-23-8 extends criminal liability to acts such as soliciting customers for prostitutes, procuring individuals for prostitution, transporting people