Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1929–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Farmers State Bank v. Keisergreen2 sentences1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. 1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. | 2 | 2 |
Hofeldt v. Mehlinggreen2 sentences2011Hofeldt v. Mehling, 2003 S.D. 25 , ¶ 11, 658 N.W.2d 783, 787 . [¶ 18.] We reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on Tolle’s promissory estoppel claim regarding the cabin. [¶ 19.] 2. 2004Hofeldt v. Mehling, 2003 SD 25, ¶ 11 , 658 N.W.2d 783, 787 (citing Auto-Owners Ins. | 1 | 3 |
Quick v. Bakke, Kopp, Ballou & McFarlin, Inc.green1 sentence2025State Bank v. Adkins, 458 -7- # 30190 N.W.2d 807 , 810 (S.D. 1990) (concluding intent is found in the unambiguous language of the contract); Quick v. Bakke, Kopp, Ballou & McFarlin, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 364, 366 (S.D. 1986) (stating “speculation should not be used to alter the unequivocal language of the agreement”). [¶22.] Therefore, where a contract is “clear, unambiguous, and fully integrated,” the parol evidence rule bars admission of extrinsic evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Oxton v. Rudlandgreen2 sentences2025Oxton v. Rudland, 2017 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 897 N.W.2d 356, 360 ; see also SDCL 53-8-5 (stating that a written contract “supersedes all oral negotiations”). 2025See Oxton, 2017 S.D. 35, ¶ 14 , 897 N.W.2d at 360 (citation omitted) (stating that “the parol evidence rule does not apply in cases of fraud in the inducement”); see also, e.g., Genevieve J. | 1 | 1 |
Tolle v. Levgreen2 sentences2023See Tolle v. Lev, 2011 S.D. 65, ¶ 17 , 804 N.W.2d 440, 446 (“Tolle is not seeking to use Lev’s oral statements to vary any term of the written agreement . . . . 2023See Tolle v. Lev, 2011 S.D. 65, ¶ 17 , 804 N.W.2d 440, 446 (“Tolle is not seeking to use Lev’s oral statements to vary any term of the written agreement . . . . | 1 | 1 |
Poeppel v. Lestergreen2 sentences2017Poeppel, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶¶ 19, 21 , 827 N.W.2d at 584-85 ; Engels v. Ranger Bar, Inc., 2000 S.D. 1 , ¶ 15, 604 N.W.2d 241, 245 ; Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D. 1990); Sabbagh v. Prof'l & Bus. 2017Poeppel, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶¶ 19, 21 , 827 N.W.2d at 584-85 ; Engels v. Ranger Bar, Inc., 2000 S.D. 1 , ¶ 15, 604 N.W.2d 241, 245 ; Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D. 1990); Sabbagh v. Prof'l & Bus. | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Couturiergreen1 sentence2017Poeppel, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶¶ 19, 21 , 827 N.W.2d at 584-85 ; Engels v. Ranger Bar, Inc., 2000 S.D. 1 , ¶ 15, 604 N.W.2d 241, 245 ; Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D. 1990); Sabbagh v. Prof'l & Bus. | 1 | 1 |
Unke v. Thorpegreen2 sentences2013However, “[t]he surrounding circumstances from which a contract stems are to be considered when interpreting its provisions.” Mitzel v. Hauck, 78 S.D. 543, 547 , 105 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1960) (citing Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 69 , 59 N.W.2d 419, 422 (1953)). [¶38.] The trial court found that the language of the Note was plain and unambiguous and concluded that the parol evidence rule applied. 2013However, “[t]he surrounding circumstances from which a contract stems are to be considered when interpreting its provisions.” Mitzel v. Hauck, 78 S.D. 543, 547 , 105 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1960) (citing Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 69 , 59 N.W.2d 419, 422 (1953)). [¶38.] The trial court found that the language of the Note was plain and unambiguous and concluded that the parol evidence rule applied. | 1 | 1 |
Mitzel v. Hauckgreen2 sentences2013However, “[t]he surrounding circumstances from which a contract stems are to be considered when interpreting its provisions.” Mitzel v. Hauck, 78 S.D. 543, 547 , 105 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1960) (citing Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 69 , 59 N.W.2d 419, 422 (1953)). [¶38.] The trial court found that the language of the Note was plain and unambiguous and concluded that the parol evidence rule applied. 2013However, “[t]he surrounding circumstances from which a contract stems are to be considered when interpreting its provisions.” Mitzel v. Hauck, 78 S.D. 543, 547 , 105 N.W.2d 378, 380 (1960) (citing Unke v. Thorpe, 75 S.D. 65, 69 , 59 N.W.2d 419, 422 (1953)). [¶38.] The trial court found that the language of the Note was plain and unambiguous and concluded that the parol evidence rule applied. | 1 | 1 |
Conn Acoustics, Inc. v. Xhema Construction, Inc.green2 sentences2013See, e.g., Conn Acoustics, Inc. v. Xhema Const., Inc., 88 Conn.App. 741 , 870 A.2d 1178, 1181 (2005). 2013See, e.g., Conn Acoustics, Inc. v. Xhema Const., Inc., 88 Conn.App. 741 , 870 A.2d 1178, 1181 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Muhlbauer v. Estate of Olsongreen2 sentences2012We will affirm a grant of summary judgment “only if all legal questions have been decided correctly.” Muhlbauer v. Estate of Olson, 2011 S.D. 42, ¶ 7 , 801 N.W.2d 446, 448 . 2012We will affirm a grant of summary judgment “only if all legal questions have been decided correctly.” Muhlbauer v. Estate of Olson, 2011 S.D. 42, ¶ 7 , 801 N.W.2d 446, 448 . | 1 | 1 |
Prudential Insurance Company v. Curtis R. Hinkel, Appellant/cross-Appellee, Anna Hinkel, a Minor, Appellee/cross-Appellantgreen2 sentences2012Co. v. Hinkel, 121 F.3d 364, 366 (8th Cir. 1997)). 6 Brown’s fraudulent inducement counterclaim was not a factually unsupported claim, especially considering that the offered evidence is not barred by the parol evidence rule. 2012Co. v. Hinkel, 121 F.3d 364, 366 (8th Cir.1997)). 6 Brown’s fraudulent inducement counterclaim was not a factually unsupported claim, especially considering that the offered evidence is not barred by the parol evidence rule. | 1 | 1 |
First Nat. Bank of Biwabik, MN v. Bank of Lemmongreen1 sentence2006First Nat’l Bank v. Bank of Lemmon, 535 N.W.2d 866, 868 (S.D.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Jewellgreen2 sentences1990Nor may the parol evidence rule be invoked “when it is sought to establish fraud as a ground for rescinding the contract.” Baker v. Jewell, 77 S.D. 573, 577 , 96 N.W.2d 299, 302 (1959). 1990Nor may the parol evidence rule be invoked “when it is sought to establish fraud as a ground for rescinding the contract.” Baker v. Jewell, 77 S.D. 573, 577 , 96 N.W.2d 299, 302 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
Eustis Mining Co. v. Beer, Sondheimer & Co.green1 sentence1985In Janssen v. Tusha, 287 N.W. at 504-05 , we quoted Judge Learned Hand in his opinion in Eustis Mining Co. v. Beer, Sondheimer & Co., Inc., 239 F. 976, 984 (S.D.N.Y.1917): It makes not the least difference whether a promisor actually intends that meaning which the law will impose upon his words. | 1 | 1 |
| Jensen v. Pure Plant Food International, Ltd.green | 1 | 1 |
| G & B CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Coronet Developers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Greve v. Bissongreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Janssen v. Tusha
green
2 sentences1985It requires that the final expression of parties shall prevail over antecedent or contemporaneous deals, negotiations, expressions, and understandings. 9 Wigmore, Evidence § 2400 (Chadbourn rev. 1981); Janssen v. Tusha, 66 S.D. 604 , 287 N.W. 501 (1939). 1948In Janssen v. Tusha, supra, it is stated, upon authorities cited, that the parol evidence rule therein relied upon is substantive in character and operates to limit the evidence from which interpretative inferences may be drawn. | 4 | 1941–1985 |
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Hansen Housing, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017But “[i]t must be understood that the parol evidence rule ‘is in no sense a rule of evidence[.]’ ” Auto-Owners, 2000 S.D. 13 , ¶ 14, 604 N.W.2d at 510 (quoting 9 J. 2004Thus, evidence of negotiations occurring after a written agreement will not be excluded by the parol evidence rule.- Id. (citing E. | 2 | 2004–2017 |
Randolph v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1995Randolph v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 255 Iowa 943 , 124 N.W.2d 528 , 8 A.L.R.3d 907 [(1963)]; Williams v. Williams, supra. Since the parol evidence rule is one of substantive law, the admission, without objection, of such testimony does not preclude the trial court from disregarding it upon a motion to direct a verdict, and an appellate court cannot coh-sider such evidence or give it any weight. 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 1022. 1995Randolph v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 255 Iowa 943 , 124 N.W.2d 528 , 8 A.L.R.3d 907 [(1963)]; Williams v. Williams, supra. Since the parol evidence rule is one of substantive law, the admission, without objection, of such testimony does not preclude the trial court from disregarding it upon a motion to direct a verdict, and an appellate court cannot coh-sider such evidence or give it any weight. 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 1022. | 2 | 1968–1995 |
Williams v. Williams
green
2 sentences1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. 1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. | 2 | 1968–1995 |
City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines
green
2 sentences1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. 1995They suggest that the trial court erred as a matter of law, (citing Farmers State Bank v. Reiser, 83 S.D. 354 , 159 N.W.2d 388, 390 (1968)): The parol evidence rule is not a rule of evidence, but is a rule of positive or substantive law founded upon the substantive rights of the parties. 30 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 1017; Williams v. Williams, 251 Iowa 260 , 100 N.W.2d 185 [(1959)]; City of Des Moines v. City of West Des Moines, supra [ 244 Iowa 310 , 56 N.W.2d 904 (1953)]. | 2 | 1968–1995 |
Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Swier
green
2 sentences1948Here, as in that case and as was true in Farmers’ Elevator Co. v. Swier, supra, the parties put down in writing that which was to determine the rights of each of them in the subject matter, in this case the farm, and the reasons and inducements which led to such expressed determination. 1932In support of her claimed right to prove by parol what she contends was the actual agreement between Tenney and Hilts at the time of the execution of Exhibit 7, .appellant does not question the correctness of the parol evidence rule as stated in Farmers’ Elevator Co. v. Swier, 50 S. D. 436, 210 N. W. 671 . | 2 | 1932–1948 |
Parmely Trust v. Magness
neutral
2 sentences2025Parmely Revocable Tr. v. Magness, 2023 S.D. 49, ¶ 15 , 996 N.W.2d 362 , 367 (explaining extrinsic evidence may be offered to prove a collateral oral agreement). [¶23.] Here, the Sturzenbechers do not argue that an exception to the parol evidence rule applies; nor do they argue that their written agreements with Sioux County are ambiguous. 2025Parmely Revocable Tr. v. Magness, 2023 S.D. 49, ¶ 15 , 996 N.W.2d 362 , 367 (explaining extrinsic evidence may be offered to prove a collateral oral agreement). [¶23.] Here, the Sturzenbechers do not argue that an exception to the parol evidence rule applies; nor do they argue that their written agreements with Sioux County are ambiguous. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Engels v. Ranger Bar, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Poeppel, 2013 S.D. 17, ¶¶ 19, 21 , 827 N.W.2d at 584-85 ; Engels v. Ranger Bar, Inc., 2000 S.D. 1 , ¶ 15, 604 N.W.2d 241, 245 ; Holmes v. Couturier, 452 N.W.2d 135, 137 (S.D. 1990); Sabbagh v. Prof'l & Bus. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wolford v. Freeman
green
1 sentence2000Id. [¶ 16.] SDCL 53-4-5 provides that fraud, in relation to contracts, occurs when “[t]he suggestion as a fact of that which is not true [is made] by one who does not believe it to be true.” Deceit occurs when “[o]ne [ ] willfully deceives another, with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk....” SDCL 20-10-1. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hisgen v. Hisgen
green
2 sentences2000Hisgen v. His-gen, 1996 SD 122, ¶4 , 554 N.W.2d 494, 496 . 2000Hisgen v. His-gen, 1996 SD 122, ¶4 , 554 N.W.2d 494, 496 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Smolnikar v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1995Smolnikar v. Robinson, 479 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S.D. 294 , 50 N.W. 84 (1891); McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S.D. 497 , 47 N.W. 816 (1891). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
McLaughlin v. Wheeler
neutral
2 sentences1995Smolnikar v. Robinson, 479 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S.D. 294 , 50 N.W. 84 (1891); McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S.D. 497 , 47 N.W. 816 (1891). 1995Smolnikar v. Robinson, 479 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S.D. 294 , 50 N.W. 84 (1891); McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S.D. 497 , 47 N.W. 816 (1891). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cosand v. Bunker
neutral
2 sentences1995Smolnikar v. Robinson, 479 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S.D. 294 , 50 N.W. 84 (1891); McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S.D. 497 , 47 N.W. 816 (1891). 1995Smolnikar v. Robinson, 479 N.W.2d 516 (S.D.1992); Cosand v. Bunker, 2 S.D. 294 , 50 N.W. 84 (1891); McLaughlin v. Wheeler, 1 S.D. 497 , 47 N.W. 816 (1891). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cert. of Question From US Dist. Court
green
1 sentence1985NOTES [*] As we recently held in In re Certification of a Question of Law, 369 N.W.2d 658 (S.D.1985), the computation of prejudgment interest is a matter for the trial court's determination. [1] Synonyms of Continuity: succession, sequence, chain. [2] Synonyms of Consistency: congruous, harmonized, accordant. [3] Jury Instruction 15 pertained to advising the jury on the law governing alteration of insurance policy applications. [4] Had the trial judge not permitted oral testimony to establish the insurance company's "alteration" per Jury Instruction 14 and 15, the parol evidence rule would be | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McCollam v. Littau
green
2 sentences1985Fraud or mistake was also recognized as an excep tion to the parol evidence rule in McCollam v. Littau, 307 N.W.2d 144 (S.D.1981). 1985Fraud or mistake was also recognized as an exception *429 to the parol evidence rule in McCollam v. Littau, 307 N.W.2d 144 (S.D.1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Dale's Service Company, Inc. v. Jones green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Alcorn v. Linke green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Stebens v. Wilkinson green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Armstrong v. Cavanagh neutral | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Beebe v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co. green | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Smith v. Price neutral | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Stoefen v. Brooks neutral | 1 | 1941–1941 |
| Haag v. Burns green | 1 | 1932–1932 |
| Mears v. Smith green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Ware v. Allen green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Moyers v. Fogarty green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.