Courts generally presume that a lawsuit has been filed in good faith, and a party moving for sanctions against the party who filed a lawsuit or claim must overcome this presumption to prove abuse of the judicial process. Thus, courts distinguish between (1) claims that are ultimately found to be merely groundless (and thus not sanctionable) and (2) claims that are ultimately found to be both groundless and brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassment (and thus sanctionable). The sanctions rules generally do not require a party or its attorney to be right; they require the party or its attorney to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the laws related to the claims.

Contempt of court is broadly defined as disobedience to or disrespect of a court by acting in opposition to its authority. Contempt of court may be punished by the court with civil and criminal sanctions or penalties.

In South Dakota, as in other jurisdictions, there is a legal presumption that lawsuits are filed in good faith. For a party to face sanctions for filing a lawsuit, the opposing party must demonstrate that the lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. This means showing that the claim was not only groundless but also filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. South Dakota's legal framework, similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires that attorneys and parties conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts and applicable law before filing claims. This does not mean they have to be correct in their legal theories or predictions of how a court might rule, but they must be reasonable in their efforts to ascertain the truth and apply the law. Regarding contempt of court, South Dakota recognizes this as an act of disobedience or disrespect towards the court's authority, which can be met with civil or criminal sanctions. The specific rules and procedures for sanctions and contempt are outlined in South Dakota's codified laws and court rules.