clear and convincing standard in South Dakota

34 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1956–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
Cromwell v. Hosbrookgreen sd · 1965 · cited in 3 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983See, e.g., People In Interest of S.R., 323 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1982); Matter of K.A.B.E., supra. This court has defined clear and convincing evidence as: [i]ts technical meaning has been expressed as “the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S. 1983See, e.g., People In Interest of S.R., 323 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1982); Matter of K.A.B.E., supra. This court has defined clear and convincing evidence as: [i]ts technical meaning has been expressed as “the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S.	3	3
Matter of JWWgreen sd · 1983 · cited in 4 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1986–1989 2 sentences 1989The trial court’s instruction defining “clear and convincing” evidence was consistent with the language of this Court in In re S.H., 337 N.W.2d 179 (S.D.1983), and In re J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1983). 1989The trial court's instruction defining "clear and convincing" evidence was consistent with the language of this Court in In re S.H., 337 N.W.2d 179 (S.D.1983), and In re J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1983).	2	4
Keller v. Kellergreen md · 1970 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 424 , 399 P.2d 850, 854-55 (1965); Keller v. Keller, 257 Md. 522 , 263 A.2d 578, 580-81 (1970); Richards v. Pac. 2008See In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 424 , 399 P.2d 850, 854-55 (1965); Keller v. Keller, 257 Md. 522 , 263 A.2d 578, 580-81 (1970); Richards v. Pac.	2	2
In Re Estate of Shirkgreen kan · 1965 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 424 , 399 P.2d 850, 854-55 (1965); Keller v. Keller, 257 Md. 522 , 263 A.2d 578, 580-81 (1970); Richards v. Pac. 2008See In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 424 , 399 P.2d 850, 854-55 (1965); Keller v. Keller, 257 Md. 522 , 263 A.2d 578, 580-81 (1970); Richards v. Pac.	2	2
People in Interest of SRgreen sd · 1982 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983See, e.g., People In Interest of S.R., 323 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1982); Matter of K.A.B.E., supra. This court has defined clear and convincing evidence as: [i]ts technical meaning has been expressed as “the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are distinctly remembered and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Cromwell v. Hosbrook, 81 S. 1983See, e.g., People in Interest of S.R., 323 N.W.2d 885 (S.D.1982); Matter of K.A.B.E., supra .	2	2
Vermilyea v. BDL Enterprises, Inc.green sd · 1990 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022An extraordinary remedy “should never be granted, except where the evidence is clear and convincing.” Knudsen v. Jensen, 521 N.W.2d 415, 418 (S.D. 1994) (applying the clear and convincing standard to the extraordinary remedy of rescission (quoting Vermilyea v. BDL Enters., Inc., 462 N.W.2d 885, 888 (S.D. 1990)). [¶35.] “A person may enter into a contract to devise property or make a will which is enforceable in equity[.]” In re Gosmire’s Estate, 331 N.W.2d 562, 568 (S.D. 1983).	1	1
Knudsen v. Jensengreen sd · 1994 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022An extraordinary remedy “should never be granted, except where the evidence is clear and convincing.” Knudsen v. Jensen, 521 N.W.2d 415, 418 (S.D. 1994) (applying the clear and convincing standard to the extraordinary remedy of rescission (quoting Vermilyea v. BDL Enters., Inc., 462 N.W.2d 885, 888 (S.D. 1990)). [¶35.] “A person may enter into a contract to devise property or make a will which is enforceable in equity[.]” In re Gosmire’s Estate, 331 N.W.2d 562, 568 (S.D. 1983).	1	1
In Re the Estate of Gosmiregreen sd · 1983 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022An extraordinary remedy “should never be granted, except where the evidence is clear and convincing.” Knudsen v. Jensen, 521 N.W.2d 415, 418 (S.D. 1994) (applying the clear and convincing standard to the extraordinary remedy of rescission (quoting Vermilyea v. BDL Enters., Inc., 462 N.W.2d 885, 888 (S.D. 1990)). [¶35.] “A person may enter into a contract to devise property or make a will which is enforceable in equity[.]” In re Gosmire’s Estate, 331 N.W.2d 562, 568 (S.D. 1983).	1	1
McAllister v. Sandersgreen indctapp · 2010 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015See McAllister v. Sanders, 937 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); Merritt v. Peet, 237 Iowa 1200 , 24 N.W.2d 757 (1946); Wagner v. Crossland Constr.	1	1
Schiff v. City of Columbusgreen ohio · 1967 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See Ashbar Enters. v. City of Akron, 2001 WL 1142354 , 2 (Ohio Ct.App.2001) (citing Smith v. City of Avon, 2000 WL 1729484 (Ohio Ct.App.2000)) (citing Burton v. City of Middletown, 4 Ohio App.3d 114 , 446 N.E.2d 793, 799 (1982); Schiff v. City of Columbus, 9 Ohio St.2d 31 , 223 N.E.2d 54, 59 (1967)). 2010See Ashbar Enters. v. City of Akron, 2001 WL 1142354 , 2 (Ohio Ct.App.2001) (citing Smith v. City of Avon, 2000 WL 1729484 (Ohio Ct.App.2000)) (citing Burton v. City of Middletown, 4 Ohio App.3d 114 , 446 N.E.2d 793, 799 (1982); Schiff v. City of Columbus, 9 Ohio St.2d 31 , 223 N.E.2d 54, 59 (1967)).	1	1
Burton v. City of Middletowngreen ohioctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See Ashbar Enters. v. City of Akron, 2001 WL 1142354 , 2 (Ohio Ct.App.2001) (citing Smith v. City of Avon, 2000 WL 1729484 (Ohio Ct.App.2000)) (citing Burton v. City of Middletown, 4 Ohio App.3d 114 , 446 N.E.2d 793, 799 (1982); Schiff v. City of Columbus, 9 Ohio St.2d 31 , 223 N.E.2d 54, 59 (1967)). 2010See Ashbar Enters. v. City of Akron, 2001 WL 1142354 , 2 (Ohio Ct.App.2001) (citing Smith v. City of Avon, 2000 WL 1729484 (Ohio Ct.App.2000)) (citing Burton v. City of Middletown, 4 Ohio App.3d 114 , 446 N.E.2d 793, 799 (1982); Schiff v. City of Columbus, 9 Ohio St.2d 31 , 223 N.E.2d 54, 59 (1967)).	1	1
Krueger v. Austadgreen sd · 1996 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See Krueger, 1996 SD 26, ¶ 7 , 545 N.W.2d at 211 . [¶ 28.] Saathoff claims that Kuhlman defamed him in Kuhlman’s letter to the editor that was published in three area newspapers. 2009See Krueger, 1996 SD 26, ¶ 7 , 545 N.W.2d at 211 . [¶ 28.] Saathoff claims that Kuhlman defamed him in Kuhlman’s letter to the editor that was published in three area newspapers.	1	1
Vreugdenhil v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A.green sd · 1991 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobiagreen md · 1992 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc.green sd · 1994 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996	1	1
People in Interest of KCgreen sd · 1987 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993	1	1
Kunkel v. United Security Ins. Co. of New Jerseygreen sd · 1969 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
Matter of DB green sd · 1986 2 sentences 1993Matter of D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1986); People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983). 1993Matter of D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1986); People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983).	9	1987–1993
People in Interest of SH green sd · 1982 2 sentences 1987We announced in In re S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982), following Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), that the proper burden of proof is the clear and convincing standard. 1987We announced in In re S.H., 323 N.W.2d 851 (S.D.1982), following Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), that the proper burden of proof is the clear and convincing standard.	8	1983–1987
People in Interest of LA green sd · 1983 2 sentences 1993Matter of D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1986); People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983). 1993Matter of D.B., 382 N.W.2d 419 (S.D.1986); People in Interest of L.A., 334 N.W.2d 62 (S.D.1983).	7	1983–1993
Santosky v. Kramer green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 1993The highest court in this land has held that a clear and convincing standard “... adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1403 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). 1993The highest court in this land has held that a clear and convincing standard “... adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 , 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1403 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).	6	1987–1993
Matter of KABE green sd · 1982 2 sentences 1986Cf. Application of Angus, 60 Or.App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court’s application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz.App.1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof. 1986App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court's application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , *Page 285 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz. App. 1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof.	4	1983–1986
Flockhart v. Wyant green sd · 1991 2 sentences 1996Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the clear and convincing burden of proof standard? [¶ 21] Jones invites this Court to reexamine the issue we decided in Flockhart v. Wyant, 467 N.W.2d 473 (S.D.1991), and require that the jury apply a clear and convincing standard of proof in determining punitive damage awards rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard. 1991Flockhart, supra. Thus, the statute leaves unchanged the substantive nature of the availability of punitive damages.	2	1991–1996
Matter of DH green sd · 1984 2 sentences 1993D.H., 354 N.W.2d at 188 . 1993D.H., 354 N.W.2d at 188 .	2	1993–1993
Matter of SH green sd · 1983 2 sentences 1989The trial court’s instruction defining “clear and convincing” evidence was consistent with the language of this Court in In re S.H., 337 N.W.2d 179 (S.D.1983), and In re J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1983). 1989The trial court's instruction defining "clear and convincing" evidence was consistent with the language of this Court in In re S.H., 337 N.W.2d 179 (S.D.1983), and In re J.W.W., 334 N.W.2d 513 (S.D.1983).	2	1988–1989
United States v. Jeffrey Scott Amos green ca8 · 1986 2 sentences 1989“It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed.” Amos, 803 F.2d at 421 . 1989"It is axiomatic, therefore, that a lesser standard of proof, such as the clear and convincing standard, may be imposed." *760 Amos, 803 F.2d at 421 .	2	1988–1989
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25525 green arizctapp · 1983 2 sentences 1986Cf. Application of Angus, 60 Or.App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court’s application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz.App.1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof. 1986Cf. Application of Angus, 60 Or.App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court’s application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz.App.1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof.	2	1986–1986
Application of Angus green orctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1986Cf. Application of Angus, 60 Or.App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court’s application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz.App.1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof. 1986Cf. Application of Angus, 60 Or.App. 546 , 655 P.2d 208 (1982) (Evidence supported trial court’s application of ICWA in a habeas corpus proceeding by Indian parents to regain custody of Indian child.); Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County, 136 Ariz. 528 , 667 P.2d 228 (Ariz.App.1983) (ICWA was not applicable in adoption proceeding where no proof in the record showed that child was Indian and the trial court entered no finding.), citing K.A.B.E., supra. Hence, the trial court correctly applied the clear-and-convincing standard of proof.	2	1986–1986
Saathoff v. Kuhlman green sd · 2009 1 sentence 2026While the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and this Court in Saathoff v. Kuhlman, 2009 S.D. 17 , 763 N.W.2d 800 , applied a burden of proof at the summary judgment stage, both are libel cases involving public figures.	1	2026–2026
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 2026While the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and this Court in Saathoff v. Kuhlman, 2009 S.D. 17 , 763 N.W.2d 800 , applied a burden of proof at the summary judgment stage, both are libel cases involving public figures.	1	2026–2026
Niemi v. Fredlund Township green sd · 2015 2 sentences 2026However, it is problematic that the circuit court rejected the Turgeons’ arguments by concluding they did not show “by clear and convincing evidence, both a dedication and acceptance of the Road.” (Emphasis added.) In support of its application of the clear and convincing standard of proof, the court relied on Niemi, where this Court adopted the clear and convincing -17- #30888 standard of proof as the proper burden to apply in dedication cases.6 2015 S.D. 62, ¶ 29 , 867 N.W.2d at 732 . 2026However, it is problematic that the circuit court rejected the Turgeons’ arguments by concluding they did not show “by clear and convincing evidence, both a dedication and acceptance of the Road.” (Emphasis added.) In support of its application of the clear and convincing standard of proof, the court relied on Niemi, where this Court adopted the clear and convincing -17- #30888 standard of proof as the proper burden to apply in dedication cases.6 2015 S.D. 62, ¶ 29 , 867 N.W.2d at 732 .	1	2026–2026
Merritt v. Peet green iowa · 1946 2 sentences 2015See McAllister v. Sanders, 937 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); Merritt v. Peet, 237 Iowa 1200 , 24 N.W.2d 757 (1946); Wagner v. Crossland Constr. 2015See McAllister v. Sanders, 937 N.E.2d 378, 383 (Ind.Ct.App.2010); Merritt v. Peet, 237 Iowa 1200 , 24 N.W.2d 757 (1946); Wagner v. Crossland Constr.	1	2015–2015
State v. Dreps green sd · 1996	1	2004–2004
State v. Benallie green sd · 1997 2 sentences 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . [¶ 62.] Second, changing the standard to conform to those jurisdictions that have lower standards is not a compelling reason. 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . [¶ 62.] Second, changing the standard to conform to those jurisdictions that have lower standards is not a compelling reason.	1	2004–2004
State v. Morato green sd · 2000	1	2004–2004
State v. Guthrie green sd · 2001	1	2004–2004
State v. Cody green sd · 1980 2 sentences 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . [¶ 62.] Second, changing the standard to conform to those jurisdictions that have lower standards is not a compelling reason.	1	2004–2004
State v. Nemeti green sd · 1991	1	2004–2004
State v. Woods green sd · 1985 2 sentences 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . 2004State v. Cody, 293 N.W.2d 440 (S.D.1980); State v. Woods, 374 N.W.2d 92 (S.D.1985); State v. Nemeti, 472 N.W.2d 477 (S.D.1991); State v. Zachodni, 466 N.W.2d 624 (S.D.1991); State v. Almond, 511 N.W.2d 572 (S.D. 1994); State v. Fountain, 534 N.W.2d 859 (S.D.1995); State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , 558 N.W.2d 339 ; State v. Benallie, 1997 SD 118 , 570 N.W.2d 236 ; State v. Morato, 2000 SD 149 , 619 N.W.2d 655 ; State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61 , 627 N.W.2d 401 . [¶ 62.] Second, changing the standard to conform to those jurisdictions that have lower standards is not a compelling reason.	1	2004–2004
State v. Almond green sd · 1994	1	2004–2004
State v. Zachodni green sd · 1991	1	2004–2004
State v. Fountain green sd · 1995	1	2004–2004
Appeal of Schramm green sd · 1987	1	1989–1989
In Re Reinstatement of Voorhees green sd · 1987	1	1988–1988
In Matter of Ss, Td, Dd green sd · 1982	1	1983–1983
City of Sioux Falls v. Wolf green sd · 1962	1	1982–1982
State v. Liberman green nd · 1930	1	1982–1982
Commercial Credit Equipment Corp. v. Johnson green sd · 1973	1	1981–1981
O'Connor v. O'Connor green sd · 1981	1	1981–1981
Seubert v. Seubert green sd · 1941	1	1956–1956
Medin v. Brookfield neutral sd · 1938	1	1956–1956

Statutes the citing opinions construe

SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-52 (11) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-12 (4) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 19-11-1 (3) USC § 25u.s.c.1912 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 880 (1960–2026) OH 475 (1983–2026) CA 448 (1978–2026) TN 341 (1990–2026) PA 181 (1983–2026) IL 171 (1975–2026) CT 138 (1982–2026) LA 110 (1985–2026) WV 103 (1984–2026) ND 85 (1979–2025) NJ 81 (1966–2026) FL 81 (1982–2026) MN 77 (1985–2025) NM 73 (1988–2025) WA 66 (1980–2026) MD 63 (1982–2023) NY 60 (1979–2026) AZ 58 (1962–2026) DC 51 (1982–2025) CO 51 (1980–2025) OK 50 (1982–2024) UT 50 (1951–2026) ME 49 (1991–2021) IN 47 (1982–2024) ID 45 (1989–2025) MO 45 (1982–2025) MI 36 (1978–2025) VA 36 (1988–2026) OR 35 (1959–2026) SD 34 (1956–2026) GA 31 (1984–2024) KS 30 (1983–2024) NC 28 (1987–2026) RI 25 (1990–2024) SC 24 (1985–2026) AK 24 (1979–2025) WI 23 (1981–2025) HI 21 (1992–2025) MA 21 (1983–2025) DE 20 (1988–2026) MS 19 (1987–2023) IA 18 (1984–2025) AL 16 (1985–2017) NE 14 (1981–2024) VT 14 (1986–2024) NV 13 (1999–2026) WY 11 (1984–2015) AR 10 (1943–2022) NH 8 (1988–2013) KY 8 (1983–2025) VI 3 (2008–2010) MT 2 (1991–2010)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check