13 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1928–2023 1 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. Lohnesgreen2 sentences1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the 1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22] To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a "distinct" group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of the | 3 | 4 |
West v. John Morrell & Co.green1 sentence2023As used in this section, the term, criminal prosecution, includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. [¶25.] In South Dakota, “[n]o part of the code of laws . . . shall be construed as retroactive unless such intention plainly appears.” SDCL 2-14-21. “‘[A] statute will not operate retroactively unless the act clearly expresses an intent to do so’ or the change is merely procedural and not substantive.” State v. Krause, 2017 S.D. 16 , ¶ 16 n.7, 894 N.W.2d 382 , 387 n.7 (alteration in original) (quoting West v. John -11- #29902 Morrell & Co., 460 N.W.2d 74 | 1 | 1 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2015See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 ; Lord v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, 2006 S.D. 70 , ¶ 18, 720 N.W.2d 443, 449-50 . 2015See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 ; Lord v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, 2006 S.D. 70 , ¶ 18, 720 N.W.2d 443, 449-50 . | 1 | 1 |
Primeaux v. Dooleygreen2 sentences2009Primeaux v. Dooley, 2008 SD 22, ¶ 12 , 747 N.W.2d 137, 141 (citations omitted). [¶ 49.] Regarding the first prong, the State concedes and the circuit court found that African Americans are a distinct group. 2009Primeaux v. Dooley, 2008 SD 22, ¶ 12 , 747 N.W.2d 137, 141 (citations omitted). [¶ 49.] Regarding the first prong, the State concedes and the circuit court found that African Americans are a distinct group. | 1 | 1 |
William J. Federer v. Richard A. Gephardt, Individually Joyce A. Aboussie, Individually James A. Larrew, Individually and John Doesgreen2 sentences2005See also Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir.2004) (holding that a claim under the equal protection section of section 1985(3) requires proof of class-based animus). [¶ 32.] On appeal, the parents do not assert, nor is there any evidence in the record to suggest, that racial or other class-based animus existed on the part of *503 the City. [8] Therefore, a prima facie claim of civil rights violations under § 1985(3) has not been established. [¶ 33.] Based on the above, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the parents established civil rights violations under 42 USC § 198 2005See also Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir.2004) (holding that a claim under the equal protection section of section 1985(3) requires proof of class-based animus). [¶ 32.] On appeal, the parents do not assert, nor is there any evidence in the record to suggest, that racial or other class-based animus existed on the part of the City. 8 Therefore, a prima facie claim of civil rights violations under § 1985(3) has not been established. [¶ 33.] Based on the above, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the parents established civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983 or § | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arguellogreen2 sentences1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the 1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22] To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a "distinct" group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresentation is due to the systematic exclusion of the | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Fouche
green
2 sentences2008Id. ¶ 10 (quoting State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83-84 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 363 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 , 90 S.Ct. 532 , 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970))). [¶ 13.] In this case, the first element is satisfied, as the State does not dispute that Native Americans are a distinct group. 2008Id. ¶ 10 (quoting State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83-84 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 363 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 , 90 S.Ct. 532 , 24 L.Ed.2d 567 (1970))). [¶ 13.] In this case, the first element is satisfied, as the State does not dispute that Native Americans are a distinct group. | 4 | 1988–2008 |
Duren v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the 1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the | 4 | 1988–2008 |
State v. Krause
neutral
1 sentence2023As used in this section, the term, criminal prosecution, includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. [¶25.] In South Dakota, “[n]o part of the code of laws . . . shall be construed as retroactive unless such intention plainly appears.” SDCL 2-14-21. “‘[A] statute will not operate retroactively unless the act clearly expresses an intent to do so’ or the change is merely procedural and not substantive.” State v. Krause, 2017 S.D. 16 , ¶ 16 n.7, 894 N.W.2d 382 , 387 n.7 (alteration in original) (quoting West v. John -11- #29902 Morrell & Co., 460 N.W.2d 74 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lord v. Hy-Vee Food Stores
green
1 sentence2015See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 ; Lord v. Hy-Vee Food Stores, 2006 S.D. 70 , ¶ 18, 720 N.W.2d 443, 449-50 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Taylor v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the 1996State v. Arguello, 502 N.W.2d 548, 553 (S.D.1993); State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77, 83 (S.D.1988) (citing Duren v. Missouri 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , 95 S.Ct. 692 , 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). [¶ 22J To establish a prima facie challenge, a defendant must show that: (1) the group excluded is a “distinct” group in the community; (2) the representation of this group in jury pools is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) this underrepresen-tation is due to the systematic exclusion of the | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Pribbenow v. Van Sambeek
green
1 sentence1993As it did in Pribbenow , SDCL 30-27-23 provided during the duration of these proceedings that, “[o]f two persons equally entitled to the custody in other respects, preference is to be given as follows: (1) to a parent[.]” 2 The custody preferences of SDCL 25-5-10, Pribbenow, supra, and SDCL 30-27-23 would appear to provide Alicia a prima facie defense to Charles’ adverse claim to custody of the youngest child if Alicia is able to muster sufficient proof that the child is an illegitimate child and not Charles’ natural child. 3 Therefore, we conclude that mother has established a probable merito | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Ackerman v. Burgard
green
1 sentence1987Id. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Independent School Dist. v. Scott
neutral
1 sentence1934Under the rule announced in the cases of Independent School District v. Scott, 51 S. D. 187, 212 N. W. 863 ; Onida Independent School District v. Groth, 53 S. D. 458, 221 N. W. 49 ; Independent School District of City of Brookings v. Flittie, 54 S. D. 526, 223 N. W. 728 , it is only necessary to show in avoidance of such defense that the defendant was an officer of the depositary bank, was charged with knowing of the unsoundness of the depositary, and did not communicate such information promptly to the authority designating the depositary. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Onida Independent School Dist. No. 1 v. Groth
green
1 sentence1934Under the rule announced in the cases of Independent School District v. Scott, 51 S. D. 187, 212 N. W. 863 ; Onida Independent School District v. Groth, 53 S. D. 458, 221 N. W. 49 ; Independent School District of City of Brookings v. Flittie, 54 S. D. 526, 223 N. W. 728 , it is only necessary to show in avoidance of such defense that the defendant was an officer of the depositary bank, was charged with knowing of the unsoundness of the depositary, and did not communicate such information promptly to the authority designating the depositary. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Independent School Dist. v. Flittie
neutral
1 sentence1934Under the rule announced in the cases of Independent School District v. Scott, 51 S. D. 187, 212 N. W. 863 ; Onida Independent School District v. Groth, 53 S. D. 458, 221 N. W. 49 ; Independent School District of City of Brookings v. Flittie, 54 S. D. 526, 223 N. W. 728 , it is only necessary to show in avoidance of such defense that the defendant was an officer of the depositary bank, was charged with knowing of the unsoundness of the depositary, and did not communicate such information promptly to the authority designating the depositary. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Board of Education of the Independent School District v. Whisman
green
1 sentence1934The last-cited case was followed by the case of Board of Education v. Whisman, 56 S. D. 472, 229 N. W. 522 , wherein the rule above announced was further extended by the holding of this court that the prima facie defense having been established by proving the designation of the depositary and its closing, the plaintiff is entitled to meet this defense by showing other facts in avoidance. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Griswold Linseed Oil Co. v. Lee
green
1 sentence1928Griswold Linseed Oil Co. v. Lee, 1 S. D. 531, 47 N. W. 955 , 36 Am. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.