21 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2026 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. Guthriegreen2 sentences2026“When a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d at 415 (citation omitted). 2024When “a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” Id. ¶ 24 (quoting State v. Guthrie, 2001 S.D. 61 , ¶ 30, 627 N.W.2d 401 , -27- #30028 415). | 6 | 11 |
State v. Asmussengreen2 sentences2019"With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence." State v. Asmussen , 2006 S.D. 37 , ¶ 13, 713 N.W.2d 580 , 586. a. 2019“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs -9- #28293 when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” State v. Asmussen, 2006 S.D. 37 , ¶ 13, 713 N.W.2d 580, 586 . a. | 3 | 8 |
State v. Birdsheadgreen2 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T | 3 | 3 |
Koon v. United Statesred2 sentences2010As this Court noted in State v. Asmussen: ‘With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” 2006 SD 37, ¶ 13 , 713 N.W.2d 580, 586 (citing State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61, ¶ 30 , 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 (citing Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2047 , 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996))). 2010As this Court noted in State v. Asmussen: ‘With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” 2006 SD 37, ¶ 13 , 713 N.W.2d 580, 586 (citing State v. Guthrie, 2001 SD 61, ¶ 30 , 627 N.W.2d 401, 415 (citing Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2047 , 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996))). | 2 | 6 |
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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T | 2 | 2 |
State v. Packedgreen2 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T | 1 | 4 |
Ruschenberg v. Eliasongreen2 sentences2023“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 (quoting JAS Enters., Inc. v. BBS Enters., Inc., 2013 S.D. 54 , ¶ 21, 835 N.W.2d 117, 125 ). 2023“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 (quoting JAS Enters., Inc. v. BBS Enters., Inc., 2013 S.D. 54 , ¶ 21, 835 N.W.2d 117, 125 ). | 1 | 1 |
Wilcox v. VERMEULENgreen1 sentence2015“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence,- not when it merely allows or refuses questionable • evidence.’ ” Wilcox v. Vermeulen, 2010 S.D. 29 , ¶ 7, 781 N.W.2d 464, 467 (quoting State v. Asmussen, 2006 S.D. 37 , ¶ 13, 713 N.W.2d 580, 586 ). [¶ 25.] The Plaintiffs argue that “the Browns do not come to this Court with clean hands on this issue.” At the pretrial conference on May 29, 2013, the Browns disclosed their partition proposal to the circuit court and the Plaintiffs. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langgreen1 sentence2002In support of his argument, Downing cites the best evidence rule codified in SDCL 19-18-2 (FedREvid 1002): “To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in chapters 19-9 to 19-18, inclusive, or by rules adopted by the Supreme Court of this state or by statute.” [¶ 12.] Downing’s argument represents a common misunderstanding of *797 the best evidence rule mentioned by this Court in State v. Lang, 354 N.W.2d 723, 725 (S.D.1984): Appellants simply misconstrue the purpose and effect of the best | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hankins
green
2 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T 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 (quoting State v. Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21 , 982 N.W.2d 21, 30 ). “[W]hen a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, as opposed to merely allowing or refusing questionable evidence, it abuses its discretion.” State v. Birdshead, 2015 S.D. 77 , ¶ 51, 871 N.W.2d 62, 79 (quoting State v. Packed, 2007 S.D. 75 , ¶ 24, 736 N.W.2d 851, 859 ). [¶31.] T | 2 | 2026–2026 |
JAS Enterprises, Inc. v. BBS Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” Ruschenberg v. Eliason, 2014 S.D. 42, ¶ 23 , 850 N.W.2d 810, 817 (quoting JAS Enters., Inc. v. BBS Enters., Inc., 2013 S.D. 54 , ¶ 21, 835 N.W.2d 117, 125 ). 2014“With regard to the rules of evidence, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court misapplies a rule of evidence, not when it merely allows or refuses questionable evidence.” JAS Enters., Inc., 2013 S.D. 54 , ¶ 21, 835 N.W.2d at 125 (quoting State v. Asmussen, 2006 S.D. 37 , ¶ 13, 713 N.W.2d 580, 586 ). | 2 | 2014–2023 |
State v. Lassiter
green
1 sentence2024The court abused its discretion in upholding the State’s objection to Van Der Weide’s attempted testimony. [¶53.] Normally, “[t]o establish reversible error with regards to an evidentiary ruling, ‘a defendant must prove not only that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence, but also that the admission resulted in prejudice.’” Little Long, 2021 S.D. 38, ¶ 49 , 962 N.W.2d at 255 (quoting State v. Lassiter, 2005 S.D. 8 , ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 171, 175 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Little Long
green
2 sentences2024The court abused its discretion in upholding the State’s objection to Van Der Weide’s attempted testimony. [¶53.] Normally, “[t]o establish reversible error with regards to an evidentiary ruling, ‘a defendant must prove not only that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence, but also that the admission resulted in prejudice.’” Little Long, 2021 S.D. 38, ¶ 49 , 962 N.W.2d at 255 (quoting State v. Lassiter, 2005 S.D. 8 , ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 171, 175 ). 2024The court abused its discretion in upholding the State’s objection to Van Der Weide’s attempted testimony. [¶53.] Normally, “[t]o establish reversible error with regards to an evidentiary ruling, ‘a defendant must prove not only that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence, but also that the admission resulted in prejudice.’” Little Long, 2021 S.D. 38, ¶ 49 , 962 N.W.2d at 255 (quoting State v. Lassiter, 2005 S.D. 8 , ¶ 13, 692 N.W.2d 171, 175 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Supreme Pork, Inc. v. Master Blaster, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014And, second, we determine “whether this error was a prejudicial error that ‘in all probability5 affected the jury’s conclusion.” Supreme Pork, Inc., 2009 S.D. 20 , ¶ 59, 764 N.W.2d at 491 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Thompson v. Mehlhaff
green
2 sentences2010“In addition to showing an abuse of discretion, [Vermeulen] must show that the excluded evidence might and probably would have resulted in a different verdict.” Thompson, 2005 SD 69, ¶21 , 698 N.W.2d at 520 (citing Schrader, 522 N.W.2d at 209-10 ). 2010“In addition to showing an abuse of discretion, [Vermeulen] must show that the excluded evidence might and probably would have resulted in a different verdict.” Thompson, 2005 SD 69, ¶21 , 698 N.W.2d at 520 (citing Schrader, 522 N.W.2d at 209-10 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Schrader v. Tjarks
green
2 sentences2010"In addition to showing an abuse of discretion, [Vermeulen] must show that the excluded evidence might and probably would have resulted in a different verdict." Thompson, 2005 SD 69, ¶ 21 , 698 N.W.2d at 520 (citing Schrader, 522 N.W.2d at 209-10 ). 2010“In addition to showing an abuse of discretion, [Vermeulen] must show that the excluded evidence might and probably would have resulted in a different verdict.” Thompson, 2005 SD 69, ¶21 , 698 N.W.2d at 520 (citing Schrader, 522 N.W.2d at 209-10 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.