12 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1961–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ackerman v. Burgardgreen2 sentences1999In Midcontinent Broadcasting Co., v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378, 380 (S.D.1983) (quoting Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961)) we held: [T]he mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter. 1999In Midcontinent Broadcasting Co., v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378, 380 (S.D.1983) (quoting Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961)) we held: [T]he mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Rickabaughgreen2 sentences2026South Dakota’s attorney-client privilege is set forth in SDCL 19-19-502(b): “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: (1) Between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representative[.]” “Four minimum elements exist to invoke [attorney-client] privilege: (1) a client; (2) a confidential communication; (3) the communication was made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional le 2026South Dakota’s attorney-client privilege is set forth in SDCL 19-19-502(b): “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: (1) Between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representative[.]” “Four minimum elements exist to invoke [attorney-client] privilege: (1) a client; (2) a confidential communication; (3) the communication was made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional le | 2 | 4 |
Voorhees Cattle Co. v. Dakota Feeding Co.green2 sentences2026South Dakota’s attorney-client privilege is set forth in SDCL 19-19-502(b): “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: (1) Between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representative[.]” “Four minimum elements exist to invoke [attorney-client] privilege: (1) a client; (2) a confidential communication; (3) the communication was made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional le 2026South Dakota’s attorney-client privilege is set forth in SDCL 19-19-502(b): “A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client: (1) Between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer’s representative[.]” “Four minimum elements exist to invoke [attorney-client] privilege: (1) a client; (2) a confidential communication; (3) the communication was made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional le | 2 | 2 |
Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. Ava Corp.green2 sentences1999In Midcontinent Broadcasting Co., v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378, 380 (S.D.1983) (quoting Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961)) we held: [T]he mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter. 1988It is the settled law in this state that “the mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter.” Rogers v. Rogers, 351 N.W.2d 129, 131 (S.D.1984); Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378, 380 (S.D.1983); Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Catch the Beargreen2 sentences1989State v. Catch the Bear, 352 N.W.2d 640 (S.D.1984). 1985State v. Catch The Bear, 352 N.W.2d 640, 645 (S.D.1984). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Wordemangreen2 sentences1988See also Smith v. Wordeman, 59 S.D. 369 , 240 N.W. 325 (1932). 1988See also Smith v. Wordeman, 59 S.D. 369 , 240 N.W. 325 (1932). | 1 | 2 |
Rogers v. Rogersgreen2 sentences1988It is the settled law in this state that "the mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter." Rogers v. Rogers, 351 N.W.2d 129, 131 (S.D.1984); Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378 , *838 380 (S.D.1983); Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961). 1988It is the settled law in this state that “the mistake or negligence of an attorney will not be imputed to the client as a bar to relief where (1) the act or omission of the attorney is excusable or (2) the defendant himself is free from neglect in the matter.” Rogers v. Rogers, 351 N.W.2d 129, 131 (S.D.1984); Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. AVA Corp., 329 N.W.2d 378, 380 (S.D.1983); Ackerman v. Burgard, 79 S.D. 119, 124 , 109 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1961). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.