34 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2026 7 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hofergreen2 sentences2026However, in State v. Hofer, we expressly adopted the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard and held that general acceptance in the scientific community is no longer required. 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D. 1994); see also State v. Moeller, 1996 S.D. 60 , ¶ 52, 548 N.W.2d 465, 479 . -22- #31052 to consider whether there were brain wave patterns suggestive of a biological cause of Kevin’s neurological deficits. 2022In re Est. of Dokken, 2000 S.D. 9 , ¶ 40, 604 N.W.2d 487, 498 (explaining that the Court in State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D. 1994) adopted the Daubert test). | 11 | 12 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis 2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis | 3 | 21 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2013See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-53 , 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1174-76 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (applying the Daubert factors to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists). 2013See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147-53 , 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1174-76 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (applying the Daubert factors to the testimony of engineers and other experts who are not scientists). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Loftusgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Yuel, 2013 S.D. 84, ¶ 7 , 840 N.W.2d 680, 683 (quoting State v. Loftus, 1997 S.D. 131 , ¶ 21, 573 N.W.2d 167, 173 ) (“The Daubert standard requires the trial court to ensure that an expert’s testimony both ‘rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’”). [¶33.] Indeed, the Intervenors’ theory for excluding Haley’s testimony did not implicate the soundness of his methodology or its relevance to Crowned Ridge’s application. 2022See State v. Yuel, 2013 S.D. 84, ¶ 7 , 840 N.W.2d 680, 683 (quoting State v. Loftus, 1997 S.D. 131 , ¶ 21, 573 N.W.2d 167, 173 ) (“The Daubert standard requires the trial court to ensure that an expert’s testimony both ‘rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’”). [¶33.] Indeed, the Intervenors’ theory for excluding Haley’s testimony did not implicate the soundness of his methodology or its relevance to Crowned Ridge’s application. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Yuelgreen2 sentences2026See also State v. Yuel, 2013 S.D. 84, ¶ 8 , 840 N.W.2d 680, 683 (“South Dakota has adopted the Daubert test . . . .”). 2026See also State v. Yuel, 2013 S.D. 84, ¶ 8 , 840 N.W.2d 680, 683 (“South Dakota has adopted the Daubert test . . . .”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Moellergreen2 sentences2026However, in State v. Hofer, we expressly adopted the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard and held that general acceptance in the scientific community is no longer required. 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D. 1994); see also State v. Moeller, 1996 S.D. 60 , ¶ 52, 548 N.W.2d 465, 479 . -22- #31052 to consider whether there were brain wave patterns suggestive of a biological cause of Kevin’s neurological deficits. 2000The trial court denied Moeller’s request, concluding that based upon his qualifications and our prior decision in State v. Moeller, 1996 SD 60, ¶ 92 , 548 N.W.2d 465, 486 , the evidence tendered by Wehrenberg was admissible. 20 [¶ 186.] In concluding that no Daubert hearing was required to determine the reliability of Wehrenberg’s testimony, the majority opinion would hold that because an expert says it is gahnite, it must be gahnite. | 2 | 8 |
In Re the Estate of Dokkengreen2 sentences2022In re Est. of Dokken, 2000 S.D. 9 , ¶ 40, 604 N.W.2d 487, 498 (explaining that the Court in State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D. 1994) adopted the Daubert test). 2022In re Est. of Dokken, 2000 S.D. 9 , ¶ 40, 604 N.W.2d 487, 498 (explaining that the Court in State v. Hofer, 512 N.W.2d 482, 484 (S.D. 1994) adopted the Daubert test). | 2 | 2 |
Rogen v. Monsongreen2 sentences2003This is not to suggest that the certification issue be combined with a full blown Daubert hearing, but rather has been described as a “lower Daubert standard.” Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12 ¶ 26 , 656 N.W.2d 285 (citing Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 162-3 (C.D.Cal.2002)). 8 Under Dau-bert, the circuit court’s rigorous certification analysis may be guided by whether “an expert’s testimony rests on both ‘a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’ ” Rogen v. Monson, 2000 SD 51, ¶ 13 , 609 N.W.2d 456, 459 (piting S 2003This is not to suggest that the certification issue be combined with a full blown Daubert hearing, but rather has been described as a “lower Daubert standard.” Howe v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 ND 12 ¶ 26 , 656 N.W.2d 285 (citing Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 159, 162-3 (C.D.Cal.2002)). 8 Under Dau-bert, the circuit court’s rigorous certification analysis may be guided by whether “an expert’s testimony rests on both ‘a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’ ” Rogen v. Monson, 2000 SD 51, ¶ 13 , 609 N.W.2d 456, 459 (piting S | 2 | 2 |
State v. Guthriegreen2 sentences2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis 2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis | 1 | 4 |
Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc.green2 sentences2025Anderson argues the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a Daubert hearing. [¶28.] “The purpose of a Daubert hearing is to determine whether the offered ‘expert testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 2007 S.D. 82 , ¶ 25, 737 N.W.2d 397, 406 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 ). 2025Anderson argues the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a Daubert hearing. [¶28.] “The purpose of a Daubert hearing is to determine whether the offered ‘expert testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 2007 S.D. 82 , ¶ 25, 737 N.W.2d 397, 406 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 ). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Lemlergreen2 sentences2026“The Daubert standard requires that the trial court ensure an expert’s testimony ‘rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” Id. (citations omitted). 2026“The Daubert standard requires that the trial court ensure an expert’s testimony ‘rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.’” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Kostel v. Schwartzgreen2 sentences2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis 2026We have stated that “an expert’s opinion is reliable if it is derived from the foundations of science rather than subjective belief.” State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 36, 627 N.W.2d 401 , 416–17 (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589–90). [¶33.] In applying the Daubert standard, “the trial court must function as a gatekeeper.” Kostel v. Schwartz, 2008 S.D. 85 , ¶ 79, 756 N.W.2d 363, 387 (citations omitted). “[T]he district court’s gatekeeping role separates expert opinion evidence based on ‘good grounds’ from subjective speculation that masquerades as scientific knowledge.” Glastetter v. Novartis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fishergreen2 sentences2026We need not consider the propriety of circuit court’s decision denying the motion for reconsideration based upon our resolution of the Daubert issue. -11- #31052 Standard of Review [¶28.] “We review a trial court’s ‘decision to admit or deny an expert’s testimony under the abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Fisher, 2011 S.D. 74, ¶ 42 , 805 N.W.2d 571, 580 (citations omitted). 2026We need not consider the propriety of circuit court’s decision denying the motion for reconsideration based upon our resolution of the Daubert issue. -11- #31052 Standard of Review [¶28.] “We review a trial court’s ‘decision to admit or deny an expert’s testimony under the abuse of discretion standard.’” State v. Fisher, 2011 S.D. 74, ¶ 42 , 805 N.W.2d 571, 580 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pretty Weaselgreen2 sentences2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (citation omitted). 2026An abuse of discretion “is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” State v. Pretty Weasel, 2023 S.D. 41, ¶ 28 , 994 N.W.2d 435, 441 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moellergreen2 sentences2025To that end, “[t]here is no requirement that the [circuit court] always hold a Daubert hearing prior to qualifying an expert witness.” United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2007) (first alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also State v. Moeller, 2000 S.D. 122 , ¶¶ 86–88, 616 N.W.2d 424, 449 (concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a request for a Daubert hearing). 2025To that end, “[t]here is no requirement that the [circuit court] always hold a Daubert hearing prior to qualifying an expert witness.” United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2007) (first alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also State v. Moeller, 2000 S.D. 122 , ¶¶ 86–88, 616 N.W.2d 424, 449 (concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a request for a Daubert hearing). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald Gene Kenyon, Also Known as Ronald G. Bingengreen2 sentences2025To that end, “[t]here is no requirement that the [circuit court] always hold a Daubert hearing prior to qualifying an expert witness.” United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2007) (first alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also State v. Moeller, 2000 S.D. 122 , ¶¶ 86–88, 616 N.W.2d 424, 449 (concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a request for a Daubert hearing). 2025To that end, “[t]here is no requirement that the [circuit court] always hold a Daubert hearing prior to qualifying an expert witness.” United States v. Kenyon, 481 F.3d 1054, 1061 (8th Cir. 2007) (first alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also State v. Moeller, 2000 S.D. 122 , ¶¶ 86–88, 616 N.W.2d 424, 449 (concluding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a request for a Daubert hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Strong v. Gantgreen2 sentences2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). 2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hullingergreen2 sentences2013Hullinger, 2002 S.D. 83 , ¶¶ 24-25, 649 N.W.2d at 261-62 (Amundson, J., concurring specially). 2013Hullinger, 2002 S.D. 83 , ¶¶ 24-25, 649 N.W.2d at 261-62 (Amundson, J., concurring specially). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fodegreen2 sentences2013See State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶¶ 34-35, 774 N.W.2d 272, 284-85 (In considering the defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony due to the fact that different variables could affect the expert’s conclusion, this Court stated that "[a] party who offers expert testimony is not[, however,] required to prove to a judge in a Daubert hearing that the expert’s opinion is correct: all that must be shown is that expert's testimony rests upon ‘good grounds, based on what is known.' Any other deficiencies in an expert’s opinion or qualifications can be tested through the adversary 2013See State v. Lemler, 2009 S.D. 86 , ¶¶ 34-35, 774 N.W.2d 272, 284-85 (In considering the defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of expert testimony due to the fact that different variables could affect the expert’s conclusion, this Court stated that “[a] party who offers expert testimony is not[, however,] required to prove to a judge in a Daubert hearing that the expert’s opinion is correct: all that must be shown is that expert’s testimony rests upon ‘good grounds, based on what is known.’ Any other deficiencies in an expert’s opinion or qualifications can be tested through the adversary | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shaddengreen2 sentences2013State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 , 235 P.3d 436, 450-51 (2010). [¶ 30.] In order to present testimony that the HGN test may be used to determine a specific BAC level, I echo Justice Amundson’s concurrence that we should require trial courts consider expert testimony via a Daubert hearing. 2013State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 , 235 P.3d 436, 450-51 (2010). [¶ 30.] In order to present testimony that the HGN test may be used to determine a specific BAC level, I echo Justice Amundson’s concurrence that we should require trial courts consider expert testimony via a Daubert hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Peters v. Hoisingtongreen2 sentences2008See Peters v. Hoisington, 72 S.D. 542, 552 , 37 N.W.2d 410, 415 (1949) (opining that when deciding whether to allow an expert to testify, the trial court has broad discretion to take into consideration how much notice the adverse party has been provided so as to “guard against surprise and to enable an adversary to investigate the professional standing of the proposed expert witness”). [¶ 78.] In regard to Dr. Schwartz’s claim that the suppressed evidence had impeachment value, he argues that a former co-worker of Kostel’s would have offered testimony about “black-outs” that Kostel allegedly t 2008See Peters v. Hoisington, 72 S.D. 542, 552 , 37 N.W.2d 410, 415 (1949) (opining that when deciding whether to allow an expert to testify, the trial court has broad discretion to take into consideration how much notice the adverse party has been provided so as to “guard against surprise and to enable an adversary to investigate the professional standing of the proposed expert witness”). [¶ 78.] In regard to Dr. Schwartz’s claim that the suppressed evidence had impeachment value, he argues that a former co-worker of Kostel’s would have offered testimony about “black-outs” that Kostel allegedly t | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2004With our preliminary inquires answered, we proceed to determine whether the strategy of not substantially participating in the • Daubert hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [IT 28.] The well-established two-prong test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing “(1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Coon v. Weber, 2002 SD 48, ¶ 11 , 644 N.W.2d 638, 642 (citations omitted). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether cou 2004With our preliminary inquires answered, we proceed to determine whether the strategy of not substantially participating in the • Daubert hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [IT 28.] The well-established two-prong test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing “(1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Coon v. Weber, 2002 SD 48, ¶ 11 , 644 N.W.2d 638, 642 (citations omitted). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether cou | 1 | 1 |
Coon v. Webergreen2 sentences2004With our preliminary inquires answered, we proceed to determine whether the strategy of not substantially participating in the • Daubert hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [IT 28.] The well-established two-prong test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing “(1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Coon v. Weber, 2002 SD 48, ¶ 11 , 644 N.W.2d 638, 642 (citations omitted). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether cou 2004With our preliminary inquires answered, we proceed to determine whether the strategy of not substantially participating in the • Daubert hearing amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [IT 28.] The well-established two-prong test for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a showing “(1) that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Coon v. Weber, 2002 SD 48, ¶ 11 , 644 N.W.2d 638, 642 (citations omitted). “ ‘The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether cou | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Reed v. Town of Babylongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reynolds v. Sheet Metal Workers, Local 102green | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 419954green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'Keygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Weavergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wittegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sahliegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tolver v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Schweitzergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Duffy v. Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit
green
2 sentences2004Our decision is limited to the holding that the circuit court must consider the factors outlined in Duffy, 2004 SD 19 , 676 N.W.2d 126 and determine, based on those factors and the facts of this case, whether those expenditures were reasonable. [¶ 15.] Indigent criminal defendants are fully entitled to effective assistance of counsel. 2004Our decision is limited to the holding that the circuit court must consider the factors outlined in Duffy, 2004 SD 19 , 676 N.W.2d 126 and determine, based on those factors and the facts of this case, whether those expenditures were reasonable. [¶ 15.] Indigent criminal defendants are fully entitled to effective assistance of counsel. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Tina M. Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
green
2 sentences2026Corp., 252 F.3d 986 , 989 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 2026Corp., 252 F.3d 986 , 989 (8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Toben v. Jeske
green
2 sentences2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). 2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Graff v. Children's Care Hospital and School
green
2 sentences2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). 2024We may only “review the trial court record insofar as it exists.” Graff v. Child.’s Care Hosp. & Sch., 2020 S.D. 26, ¶ 16 , 943 N.W.2d 484 , 489. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for presenting an adequate record on appeal falls upon the appellant.” Strong v. Gant, 2014 S.D. 8, ¶ 23 , 843 N.W.2d 357, 363 (quoting Toben v. Jeske, 2006 S.D. 57 , ¶ 11, 718 N.W.2d 32, 35 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Horn
green
2 sentences2013The Horn case includes an extensive discussion on the use of the HGN test to prove a specific BAC level and various critiques of the methodology used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and others in studying the HGN test. 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 . [¶33.] Officer Treadway was qualified to offer testimony about administering the HGN test and whether the test indicated impairment in this case. 2013The Horn case includes an extensive discussion on the use of the HGN test to prove a specific BAC level and various critiques of the methodology used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and others in studying the HGN test. 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 . [¶33.] Officer Treadway was qualified to offer testimony about administering the HGN test and whether the test indicated impairment in this case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Jones v. Class
green
2 sentences2004Lawyers “are presumed to be competent unless otherwise shown and the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time in light of all of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 ). “[A] wrong or poorly advised exercise of judgment is not alone enough to support a subsequent claim of ineffective counsel.” Jones v. Class, 1998 SD 55, ¶ 23 , 578 N.W.2d 154, 162 . [¶ 29.] As a result of the Daubert hearing, the trial court allowed the State to introduce DNA evidence using both APO-B and other markers. 2004Lawyers “are presumed to be competent unless otherwise shown and the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time in light of all of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 ). “[A] wrong or poorly advised exercise of judgment is not alone enough to support a subsequent claim of ineffective counsel.” Jones v. Class, 1998 SD 55, ¶ 23 , 578 N.W.2d 154, 162 . [¶ 29.] As a result of the Daubert hearing, the trial court allowed the State to introduce DNA evidence using both APO-B and other markers. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Davi v. Class
green
2 sentences2004Lawyers “are presumed to be competent unless otherwise shown and the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time in light of all of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 ). “[A] wrong or poorly advised exercise of judgment is not alone enough to support a subsequent claim of ineffective counsel.” Jones v. Class, 1998 SD 55, ¶ 23 , 578 N.W.2d 154, 162 . [¶ 29.] As a result of the Daubert hearing, the trial court allowed the State to introduce DNA evidence using both APO-B and other markers. 2004Lawyers “are presumed to be competent unless otherwise shown and the reasonableness of counsel’s performance is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time in light of all of the circumstances.” Id. (citing Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 ). “[A] wrong or poorly advised exercise of judgment is not alone enough to support a subsequent claim of ineffective counsel.” Jones v. Class, 1998 SD 55, ¶ 23 , 578 N.W.2d 154, 162 . [¶ 29.] As a result of the Daubert hearing, the trial court allowed the State to introduce DNA evidence using both APO-B and other markers. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Howe v. Microsoft Corp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jules Link v. Mercedes-Benz Of North America, Inc. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Murphy green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Armstrong green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Armstrong green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Frye v. United States red | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. City Court of City of Mesa green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Baue green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| United States v. Adrian Paul Martinez green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| United States v. Reginald Pierre Beasley, United States of America v. Oliver Lawrence Beasley green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Bland v. Davison County green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Edelman green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Electric Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Schaffer v. Edward D. Jones & Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.
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.