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.
23 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc.green2 sentences2021First, we “determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, [we determine] whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting Supreme Pork v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 ). [¶25.] In asserting prejudice, Nohava points to the fact that during the State’s closing argument, the State improperly used Sarkkinen’s testimony about the later drug transaction and assault to paint him as a dangerous drug dealer. 2021Whether the circuit court erred in overruling Thoman’s objections to Dr. Sahin’s testimony. [¶41.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making -19- #29151 an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 S.D. 39, ¶ 27 , 946 N.W.2d 1 , 8 (quoting Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 ). [¶42.] Thoman classifies D | 1 | 15 |
State v. Hankinsgreen2 sentences2025Whether the circuit court erred by admitting a photograph of a page from Tuopeh’s notebook. [¶54.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 20 , 982 N.W.2d at 30 (citation omitted). 2025Whether the circuit court erred by admitting a photograph of a page from Tuopeh’s notebook. [¶54.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 20 , 982 N.W.2d at 30 (citation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Andrews v. Ridco & Twin City Fire Ins. Co.green2 sentences2021“An 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.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 24, ¶ 14 , 863 N.W.2d 540, 546 ). [¶11.] “Rebuttal evidence is that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence. 2021“An 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.” Id. (quoting Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 24, ¶ 14 , 863 N.W.2d 540, 546 ). [¶11.] “Rebuttal evidence is that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence. | 1 | 2 |
Ruschenberg v. Eliasongreen2 sentences2020“First, we ‘determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling.’” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 ). -8- #28780, #28781 “Second, we determine whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d at 817 ). [¶21.] “Evidence is relevant if . . . [i]t has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and . . . [t]he fact is of consequence in determining the action.” SDCL 2020“First, we ‘determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling.’” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 ). -8- #28780, #28781 “Second, we determine whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d at 817 ). [¶21.] “Evidence is relevant if . . . [i]t has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and . . . [t]he fact is of consequence in determining the action.” SDCL | 1 | 2 |
Powers v. Turner County Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2024“For expert testimony, this Court adopted the test from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” Powers, 2022 S.D. 77, ¶ 9 , 983 N.W.2d at 599 (internal citation omitted). [¶43.] Expert testimony is governed by SDCL 19-19-702 (Rule 702), which provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) The testimony is based on s 2024“For expert testimony, this Court adopted the test from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” Powers, 2022 S.D. 77, ¶ 9 , 983 N.W.2d at 599 (internal citation omitted). [¶43.] Expert testimony is governed by SDCL 19-19-702 (Rule 702), which provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) The testimony is based on s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomangreen2 sentences2022Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. [¶20.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” State v. Thoman, 2021 S.D. 10, ¶ 41 , 955 N.W.2d 759, 772 (quoting Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 S.D. 39, ¶ 27 , 946 N.W.2d 1 , 8). 2022Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. [¶20.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” State v. Thoman, 2021 S.D. 10, ¶ 41 , 955 N.W.2d 759, 772 (quoting Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 S.D. 39, ¶ 27 , 946 N.W.2d 1 , 8). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Babcockgreen2 sentences2022“The trial court[’s] evidentiary rulings are presumed to be correct.” State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, ¶ 21 , 952 N.W.2d 750, 757 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 S.D. 71 , ¶ 13, 665 N.W.2d 100, 105 ). -9- #29801 [¶21.] “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 72 , ¶ 22, 855 N.W.2d 668, 675 ). 2022“The trial court[’s] evidentiary rulings are presumed to be correct.” State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, ¶ 21 , 952 N.W.2d 750, 757 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 S.D. 71 , ¶ 13, 665 N.W.2d 100, 105 ). -9- #29801 [¶21.] “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 72 , ¶ 22, 855 N.W.2d 668, 675 ). | 1 | 1 |
Glanzer v. Reedgreen1 sentence2019See Glanzer v. Reed, 2008 S.D. 104 , ¶ 13, 757 N.W.2d 417, 420 (“Whether a new trial should be granted is left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (quoting Waldner v. Berglund, 2008 S.D. 75, ¶ 11 , 754 N.W.2d 832, 835 )). | 1 | 1 |
Waldner v. Berglundgreen1 sentence2019See Glanzer v. Reed, 2008 S.D. 104 , ¶ 13, 757 N.W.2d 417, 420 (“Whether a new trial should be granted is left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (quoting Waldner v. Berglund, 2008 S.D. 75, ¶ 11 , 754 N.W.2d 832, 835 )). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen1 sentence2018Standard of Review [¶10.] “Our review of a circuit court’s evidentiary ruling follows a two-step analysis: ‘first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that “in all probability” affected the jury’s conclusion.’” State v. Martin, 2015 S.D. 2 , ¶ 7, 859 N.W.2d 600, 603 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sedlacek v. Prussman Contracting, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025“First, we ‘determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling.’” Id. (citation omitted). “[S]econd, we determine ‘whether this error was a prejudicial error[.]’” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 2025“First, we ‘determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling.’” Id. (citation omitted). “[S]econd, we determine ‘whether this error was a prejudicial error[.]’” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
Johnson v. UPS
green
2 sentences2022Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. [¶20.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” State v. Thoman, 2021 S.D. 10, ¶ 41 , 955 N.W.2d 759, 772 (quoting Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 S.D. 39, ¶ 27 , 946 N.W.2d 1 , 8). 2021Whether the circuit court erred in overruling Thoman’s objections to Dr. Sahin’s testimony. [¶41.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings ‘requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making -19- #29151 an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.’” Johnson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2020 S.D. 39, ¶ 27 , 946 N.W.2d 1 , 8 (quoting Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 ). [¶42.] Thoman classifies D | 3 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2025We have clarified that “the ‘all probability’ phrase should be understood as ‘a reasonable probability that, but for [the error], the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” State v. Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26 , 1 N.W.3d 674 , 686 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 2025We have recently clarified the prejudice standard as “a reasonable probability that, but for [the error], the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Carter, 2023 S.D. 67, ¶ 26 , 1 N.W.3d 674 , 686 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). a. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Roach
green
2 sentences2013State v. Roach, 2012 S.D. 91, ¶ 37 , 825 N.W.2d 258, 268 . “[O]ur review requires a two-step process; first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 . 2013State v. Roach, 2012 S.D. 91, ¶ 37 , 825 N.W.2d 258, 268 . “[O]ur review requires a two-step process; first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Weber v. Weber
green
2 sentences2025“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Id. ¶ 57, 18 N.W.3d at 161 (quoting Weber v. Weber, 2023 S.D. 64, ¶ 15 , 999 N.W.2d 230 , 234). “[S]econd, we determine, ‘whether this error was a prejudicial error[.]’” Id. (first alteration in original) -28- #30841 (citation omitted). 2025“An abuse of discretion ‘is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.’” Id. ¶ 57, 18 N.W.3d at 161 (quoting Weber v. Weber, 2023 S.D. 64, ¶ 15 , 999 N.W.2d 230 , 234). “[S]econd, we determine, ‘whether this error was a prejudicial error[.]’” Id. (first alteration in original) -28- #30841 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Richard
neutral
1 sentence2025Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it allowed D.W. to testify while holding a stuffed animal. [¶12.] “Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings requires a two-step process: first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error[.]” State v. Richard, 2023 S.D. 71, ¶ 22 , 1 N.W.3d 654 , 660 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 20 , 982 N.W.2d 21 , 30). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rouse
green
1 sentence2025“An abuse of discretion is defined as 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. Rouse, 2025 S.D. 29, ¶ 24 , 23 N.W.3d 467 , 476 (quoting State v. Belt, 2024 S.D. 82, ¶ 20 , 15 N.W.3d 732 , 737). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Belt
green
1 sentence2025“An abuse of discretion is defined as 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. Rouse, 2025 S.D. 29, ¶ 24 , 23 N.W.3d 467 , 476 (quoting State v. Belt, 2024 S.D. 82, ¶ 20 , 15 N.W.3d 732 , 737). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Boston
green
2 sentences2022“The trial court[’s] evidentiary rulings are presumed to be correct.” State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, ¶ 21 , 952 N.W.2d 750, 757 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 S.D. 71 , ¶ 13, 665 N.W.2d 100, 105 ). -9- #29801 [¶21.] “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 72 , ¶ 22, 855 N.W.2d 668, 675 ). 2022“The trial court[’s] evidentiary rulings are presumed to be correct.” State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, ¶ 21 , 952 N.W.2d 750, 757 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 S.D. 71 , ¶ 13, 665 N.W.2d 100, 105 ). -9- #29801 [¶21.] “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 72 , ¶ 22, 855 N.W.2d 668, 675 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Hayes
green
1 sentence2022“The trial court[’s] evidentiary rulings are presumed to be correct.” State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, ¶ 21 , 952 N.W.2d 750, 757 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Boston, 2003 S.D. 71 , ¶ 13, 665 N.W.2d 100, 105 ). -9- #29801 [¶21.] “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence.” Id. (quoting State v. Hayes, 2014 S.D. 72 , ¶ 22, 855 N.W.2d 668, 675 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Kvasnicka
green
1 sentence2021First, we “determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, [we determine] whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting Supreme Pork v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 ). [¶25.] In asserting prejudice, Nohava points to the fact that during the State’s closing argument, the State improperly used Sarkkinen’s testimony about the later drug transaction and assault to paint him as a dangerous drug dealer. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re the Certifiability of Jarman
green
1 sentence2020“An 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.” Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 15 , ¶ 14, 863 N.W.2d 540, 546 (quoting In re Jarman, 2015 S.D. 8 , ¶ 19, 860 N.W.2d 1, 9 ). [¶28.] “A trial court has discretion in the wording and arrangement of its jury instructions, and therefore we generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a particular instruction under the abuse of discretion standard.” Bertelsen v. Allstate Ins. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Zochert v. Protective Life Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2020“When conducting a de novo review, ‘we give no deference to the circuit court’s decision.’” Zochert, 2018 S.D. 84 , ¶ 18, 921 N.W.2d at 486 (quoting Oxton v. Rudland, 2017 S.D. 35, ¶ 12 , 897 N.W.2d 356, 360 ). [¶27.] Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings “requires a two-step process[:] first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Oxton v. Rudland
green
1 sentence2020“When conducting a de novo review, ‘we give no deference to the circuit court’s decision.’” Zochert, 2018 S.D. 84 , ¶ 18, 921 N.W.2d at 486 (quoting Oxton v. Rudland, 2017 S.D. 35, ¶ 12 , 897 N.W.2d 356, 360 ). [¶27.] Our standard of review for evidentiary rulings “requires a two-step process[:] first, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling; and second, whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability’ affected the jury’s conclusion.” Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d 474, 491 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stabler v. First State Bank of Roscoe
green
1 sentence2020“First, we ‘determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making an evidentiary ruling.’” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 ). -8- #28780, #28781 “Second, we determine whether this error was a prejudicial error that in all probability affected the jury’s conclusion.” Id. (quoting Ruschenberg, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d at 817 ). [¶21.] “Evidence is relevant if . . . [i]t has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and . . . [t]he fact is of consequence in determining the action.” SDCL | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.