23 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1892–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Andersongreen2 sentences2016Whether the court erred when it determined that RCS was entitled to attorney’s fees under the'subcontracts. [¶ 13.] “South Dakota follows the American rule for attorney fees in ‘that each party bears the burden of the party’s own.attorney fees.’ ” Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Anderson, 2013 S.D. 21, ¶ 28 , 827 N.W.2d 859, 867 (quoting In re S.D. 2016Whether the court erred when it determined that RCS was entitled to attorney’s fees under the'subcontracts. [¶ 13.] “South Dakota follows the American rule for attorney fees in ‘that each party bears the burden of the party’s own.attorney fees.’ ” Eagle Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Anderson, 2013 S.D. 21, ¶ 28 , 827 N.W.2d 859, 867 (quoting In re S.D. | 3 | 3 |
Credit Collection Services, Inc. v. Pesickagreen2 sentences2025However, attorney fees are allowed when there is a contractual agreement that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees or there is statutory authority authorizing an award of attorney fees.’” Credit Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pesicka, 2006 S.D. 81 , ¶ 6, 721 N.W.2d 474, 476 (quoting Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 S.D. 103 , ¶ 26, 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ). 2025However, attorney fees are allowed when there is a contractual agreement that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees or there is statutory authority authorizing an award of attorney fees.’” Credit Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pesicka, 2006 S.D. 81 , ¶ 6, 721 N.W.2d 474, 476 (quoting Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 S.D. 103 , ¶ 26, 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ). | 2 | 2 |
Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc.green2 sentences2006Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees under SDCL 15-17-38 [¶ 17.] “South Dakota utilizes the American rule that each party bears the burden of the party’s own attorney[’s] fees.” Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 2005 SD 113, ¶ 29 , 707 N.W.2d at 98 (citing Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 SD 103, ¶ 26 , 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ) (citing Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, 2003 SD 17, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 64, 67-68 )). 2006Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees under SDCL 15-17-38 [¶ 17.] “South Dakota utilizes the American rule that each party bears the burden of the party’s own attorney[’s] fees.” Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 2005 SD 113, ¶ 29 , 707 N.W.2d at 98 (citing Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 SD 103, ¶ 26 , 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ) (citing Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, 2003 SD 17, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 64, 67-68 )). | 1 | 4 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences1996It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always in perfect good taste, on all public institutions, and this opportunity is to be afforded for “vigorous advocacy” no less than “abstract discussion.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 269 , 84 S.Ct. at 720 , 11 L.Ed.2d at 700 (citations omitted). 1996It is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always in perfect good taste, on all public institutions, and this opportunity is to be afforded for “vigorous advocacy” no less than “abstract discussion.” New York Times, 376 U.S. at 269 , 84 S.Ct. at 720 , 11 L.Ed.2d at 700 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Van Emmerik v. Montana Dakota Utilities Co.green1 sentence1987See numerous cases cited in Van Emmerik III, 332 N.W.2d at 282 . | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.green2 sentences1983This development has been most pronounced, in shareholders’ derivative actions, where the courts increasingly have recognized that the expenses incurred by one shareholder in the vindication of a corporate right of action can be spread among all shareholders through an award against the corporation, regardless of whether an actual money recovery has been obtained in the corporation’s favor. 396 U.S. at 394 , 90 S.Ct. at 626 , 24 L.Ed.2d at 607 (footnote omitted). 1983This development has been most pronounced, in shareholders’ derivative actions, where the courts increasingly have recognized that the expenses incurred by one shareholder in the vindication of a corporate right of action can be spread among all shareholders through an award against the corporation, regardless of whether an actual money recovery has been obtained in the corporation’s favor. 396 U.S. at 394 , 90 S.Ct. at 626 , 24 L.Ed.2d at 607 (footnote omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re South Dakota Microsoft Antitrust Litigation
green
2 sentences2011Microsoft Antitrust Litig., 2005 S.D. 113 , ¶ 27, 707 N.W.2d 85, 97 ). [¶ 25.] In South Dakota, the recovery of attorneys’ fees is governed by the American rule, which provides that each party bears his attorneys’ fees. 2011Microsoft Antitrust Litig., 2005 S.D. 113 , ¶ 27, 707 N.W.2d 85, 97 ). [¶ 25.] In South Dakota, the recovery of attorneys’ fees is governed by the American rule, which provides that each party bears his attorneys’ fees. | 7 | 2006–2023 |
Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score
green
2 sentences2006Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees under SDCL 15-17-38 [¶ 17.] “South Dakota utilizes the American rule that each party bears the burden of the party’s own attorney[’s] fees.” Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 2005 SD 113, ¶ 29 , 707 N.W.2d at 98 (citing Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 SD 103, ¶ 26 , 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ) (citing Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, 2003 SD 17, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 64, 67-68 )). 2006Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees under SDCL 15-17-38 [¶ 17.] “South Dakota utilizes the American rule that each party bears the burden of the party’s own attorney[’s] fees.” Microsoft Antitrust Litigation, 2005 SD 113, ¶ 29 , 707 N.W.2d at 98 (citing Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 2004 SD 103, ¶ 26 , 687 N.W.2d 507, 513 ) (citing Public Entity Pool for Liability v. Score, 2003 SD 17, ¶ 7 , 658 N.W.2d 64, 67-68 )). | 3 | 2004–2006 |
Arrowhead Ridge I, LLC v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Arrowhead Ridge I, LLC v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. , 2011 S.D. 38 , ¶ 25, 800 N.W.2d 730 , 737. 2018Arrowhead Ridge I, LLC v. Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. , 2011 S.D. 38 , ¶ 25, 800 N.W.2d 730 , 737. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Boland v. City of Rapid City
green
2 sentences1984Boland v. City of Rapid City, 315 N.W.2d 496 , 503 n. 4 (S.D.1982). 1984Boland v. City of Rapid City, 315 N.W.2d 496 , 503 n. 4 (S.D.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society
red
2 sentences1982As ap-pellee correctly points out, the amendment was generated by the United States Supreme Court decision in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), where the Court refused to tax attorneys’ fees based on the “private attorney general” approach, leaving it to Congress to authorize such an exception to the so-called “American rule” that attorneys’ fees are not ordinarily recoverable in the absence of statutory authorization. 4 The purpose of section 1988 “is to remedy anomalous gaps in our civil rights laws created by the United 1982As ap-pellee correctly points out, the amendment was generated by the United States Supreme Court decision in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), where the Court refused to tax attorneys’ fees based on the “private attorney general” approach, leaving it to Congress to authorize such an exception to the so-called “American rule” that attorneys’ fees are not ordinarily recoverable in the absence of statutory authorization. 4 The purpose of section 1988 “is to remedy anomalous gaps in our civil rights laws created by the United | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co.
green
2 sentences1937The ¿Etna contends for what is frequently known as the American rule, which has been the law in a numerical minority of our state jurisdictions and which 'became the law of the federal courts by the decision in the leading case of Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance Co. (1924) 264 U. S. 182 , 44 S. Ct. 266 , 68 L. 1937The ¿Etna contends for what is frequently known as the American rule, which has been the law in a numerical minority of our state jurisdictions and which 'became the law of the federal courts by the decision in the leading case of Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance Co. (1924) 264 U. S. 182 , 44 S. Ct. 266 , 68 L. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Vrooman v. . Turner
green
2 sentences1912Among the authorities supporting the New York rule and denying a right of recovery under the facts in this case are the following: King v. Whitely, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 465; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280 , 25 Am. 1912Among the authorities supporting the New York rule and denying a right of recovery under the facts in this case are the following: King v. Whitely, 10 Paige (N. Y.) 465; Vrooman v. Turner, 69 N. Y. 280 , 25 Am. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Fish & Hunter Co. v. New England Homestake Co.
neutral
2 sentences1912This state adopted such rule by section 1193, Civil Code, which reads: “A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.” Respondent further urges that this court has decided the other question involved herein in the case of Fish & Hunter Co. v. New England Homestake Co., 27 S. D. 221, 130 N. W. 841 . 1912This state adopted such rule by section 1193, Civil Code, which reads: “A contract, made expressly for the benefit of a third person, may be enforced by him at any time before the parties thereto rescind it.” Respondent further urges that this court has decided the other question involved herein in the case of Fish & Hunter Co. v. New England Homestake Co., 27 S. D. 221, 130 N. W. 841 . | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Hudson v. Solomon
green
2 sentences1899In the case of Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177 , Judge Brewer thus states two of the cardinal rules governing elections and election contests: “(1) As between the ballots cast at an election, and a canvass of these ballots by the election officers, the former are the primary, the controlling, evidence. (2) In order to continue the ballots controlling as evidence, it must appear that they have been preserved in the manner and by the officers prescribed in the statute, and that while in such custody they have not been so exposed to the reach of unauthorized persons as to afford a reasonable proba 1899In the case of Hudson v. Solomon, 19 Kan. 177 , Judge Brewer thus states two of the cardinal rules governing elections and election contests: “(1) As between the ballots cast at an election, and a canvass of these ballots by the election officers, the former are the primary, the controlling, evidence. (2) In order to continue the ballots controlling as evidence, it must appear that they have been preserved in the manner and by the officers prescribed in the statute, and that while in such custody they have not been so exposed to the reach of unauthorized persons as to afford a reasonable proba | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Hoyt v. . Thompson
green
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Haight v. . Hayt
green
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Byxbie v. . Wood
green
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Tyson v. McGuineas
neutral
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Chapman v. Plummer
neutral
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Blair v. Hamilton
neutral
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Weire v. City of Davenport
green
1 sentence1892As a consequence, such things in action, although based upon a tort, are assignable.” The following resume of authorities will show the universality of the rule, and the reasons upon which it is based: Hoyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320 ; Haight v. Hayt, 19 N. Y. 464 ; Byxbie v. Wood, 24 N. Y. 607 ; Weire v. Davenport, 11 Iowa, 49 ; Tyson v. McGuineas, 25 Wis. 656 ; Blair v. Hamilton, 48 Ind. 32 ; Chapman v. Plummer, 36 Wis. 262 . | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.