Questions, 7 J.App. Prac. & Process 101 (2005) (analyzing issues courts face in determining the appropriate standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact). 3 . Because the issue has not been presented to this Court, we express no opinion as to whether the 2001 deeds were delivered to Bruce, John, or Cecil Jr. during Cecil Sr.’s lifetime. 4 . The Stoekwells appear to argue that the deeds were not delivered in September 2001 because Lloyd placed them in a dresser in Cecil Sr.’s bedroom. But the dresser belonged to Lloyd, and he kept legal documents in it. Moreover, under South Dakota law, "[rjedelivering a grant of real property to the grantor or canceling it does not operate to retransfer the title.” SDCL 43-4-12. See Birchard v. Simons, 59 S.D. 422, 240 N.W. 490, 492 (1932) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Cecil Jr. later refinanced and borrowed
holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule holding before the advent of the federal rules of evidence that the use of a tax return for the purpose of impeachment was proper holding that completed delivery of a deed was not subsequently invalidated by return of deed to grantor for recording safekeeping or other special purpose recognizing that  1983 action does not accrue until conviction or sentence has been invalidated