14 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1933–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Somers v. Somersgreen2 sentences2006It also concedes that the spread rate was not in error. [¶ 32.] Under this Court’s holding in Western Casualty and Surety Co., To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped, which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to part with something of value or do some other act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights. 318 N.W.2d at 128 ( 2006It also concedes that the spread rate was not in error. [¶ 32.] Under this Court’s holding in Western Casualty and Surety Co., To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped, which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to part with something of value or do some other act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights. 318 N.W.2d at 128 ( | 5 | 8 |
Eh v. Mhgreen2 sentences1996“To maintain estoppel, there must have been an act or conduct by the party to be estopped which induces reliance by another to his or her detriment, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his or her- legal rights.” E.H., 512 N.W.2d at 149-50 (emphasis omitted). 1996"To maintain estoppel, there must have been an act or conduct by the party to be estopped which induces reliance by another to his or her detriment, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his or her legal rights." E.H., 512 N.W.2d at 149-50 (emphasis omitted). | 2 | 3 |
Western Cas. and Sur. v. AMERICAN NAT., ETC.green2 sentences2006It also concedes that the spread rate was not in error. [¶ 32.] Under this Court’s holding in Western Casualty and Surety Co., To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped, which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to part with something of value or do some other act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights. 318 N.W.2d at 128 ( 2006Estoppel will be applied against a party “who by their words or conduct take positions inconsistent with their rights, unfairly misleading others into detrimental reliance.” Harms, 1999 SD 143, ¶ 17 , 602 N.W.2d at 62 (citing Western Casualty and Surety Co., 318 N.W.2d at 128 (citing Somers, 27 S.D. at 504 , 131 N.W. at 1093 )). | 1 | 2 |
A-G-E Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2010A-G-E Corp. v. State, 2006 SD 66, ¶32 , 719 N.W.2d 780, 789 (quoting Western Cas. and Sur. 2010A-G-E Corp. v. State, 2006 SD 66, ¶32 , 719 N.W.2d 780, 789 (quoting Western Cas. and Sur. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Gallaghergreen1 sentence1996Cf. Gallagher, 539 N.W.2d at 479 (child born during marriage and husband reasonably believed he was the father). [¶ 16] Matthew’s estoppel theory is not founded solely upon Stephanie’s public declaration of Matthew’s paternity, but it also arises from his purported reliance on her conduct in authorizing and encouraging the development of a father-son relationship, leading him to believe she would not enforce her superior right to custody. | 1 | 1 |
Sander v. Wrightgreen1 sentence1987Co., 318 N.W.2d 126, 128 (S.D.1982). *344 In Sander v. Wright, 394 N.W.2d 896, 898 (S.D.1986), this court's most recent decision concerning equitable estoppel, we quoted from Western Cas. & Sur., supra, and then wrote: In other cases, it has been stated that in order for equitable estoppel to exist, there must be fraud, false representations, or concealment of material facts. | 1 | 1 |
Farmers' Shipping Ass'n of Sinai v. Nordgrengreen2 sentences1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . 1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Gramgreen2 sentences1976See also Kelly v. Gram, 1949, 73 S.D. 11 , 38 N.W.2d 460 . 1976See also Kelly v. Gram, 1949, 73 S.D. 11 , 38 N.W.2d 460 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Weaver v. Bauer
green
2 sentences1983Northwest Realty Company v. Colling, 82 S.D. 421 , 147 N.W.2d 675 (1966); Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 (1956). 1983Northwest Realty Company v. Colling, 82 S.D. 421 , 147 N.W.2d 675 (1966); Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 (1956). | 2 | 1976–1983 |
Brown County v. Easton
neutral
2 sentences1956As stated by the court in the case of Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669, 670 , “To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to do some act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights.” Under the findings of the trial court we are u 1956As stated by this court in the case of Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N. W. 669, 670 , "To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to do some act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights." Under the findings of the trial court we are | 2 | 1956–1976 |
Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
green
2 sentences1956As stated by the court in the case of Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669, 670 , “To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to do some act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights.” Under the findings of the trial court we are u 1956As stated by this court in the case of Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N. W. 669, 670 , "To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to do some act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights." Under the findings of the trial court we are | 2 | 1956–1976 |
Harms v. Northland Ford Dealers
green
2 sentences2006Estoppel will be applied against a party “who by their words or conduct take positions inconsistent with their rights, unfairly misleading others into detrimental reliance.” Harms, 1999 SD 143, ¶ 17 , 602 N.W.2d at 62 (citing Western Casualty and Surety Co., 318 N.W.2d at 128 (citing Somers, 27 S.D. at 504 , 131 N.W. at 1093 )). 2006Estoppel will be applied against a party “who by their words or conduct take positions inconsistent with their rights, unfairly misleading others into detrimental reliance.” Harms, 1999 SD 143, ¶ 17 , 602 N.W.2d at 62 (citing Western Casualty and Surety Co., 318 N.W.2d at 128 (citing Somers, 27 S.D. at 504 , 131 N.W. at 1093 )). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Farmers Elevator Co. of Elk Point v. Lyle
green
2 sentences1984“To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped, which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has caused such party to part with something of value or do some other act relying upon the conduct of the party to be es-topped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights. * * * ” Farmers Elevator Co., 238 N.W.2d at 293 , citing Somers v. Somers, 27 S.D. 500, 504 , 131 N.W. 1091, 1093 (1911); Western Cas. & Sur. 1984"To create an estoppel, there must have been some act or conduct upon the part of the party to be estopped, which has in some manner misled the party in whose favor the estoppel is sought and has *476 caused such party to part with something of value or do some other act relying upon the conduct of the party to be estopped, thus creating a condition that would make it inequitable to allow the guilty party to claim what would otherwise be his legal rights. * * *" Farmers Elevator Co., 238 N.W.2d at 293 , citing Somers v. Somers, 27 S.D. 500, 504 , 131 N.W. 1091, 1093 (1911); Western Cas. & Sur. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Northwest Realty Company v. Colling
green
2 sentences1983Northwest Realty Company v. Colling, 82 S.D. 421 , 147 N.W.2d 675 (1966); Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 (1956). 1983Northwest Realty Company v. Colling, 82 S.D. 421 , 147 N.W.2d 675 (1966); Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 (1956). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lehman v. Smith
green
2 sentences1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . 1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Hood v. Sioux Steel Co.
green
2 sentences1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . 1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Babcock v. McKee
green
2 sentences1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . 1976See also Farmers’ Shipping Ass’n v. Nordgren, 56 S.D. 152 , 227 N.W. 576 ; Iowa Guarantee Mortgage Corp. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 62 S.D. 18 , 250 N.W. 669 ; Lehman v. Smith, 40 S.D. 556 , 168 N.W. 857 ; Hood v. Sioux Steel Co., 67 S.D. 1 , 287 N.W. 636 ; Babcock v. McKee, 70 S.D. 442 , 18 N.W.2d 750 ; Weaver v. Bauer, 76 S.D. 401 , 79 N.W.2d 361 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.