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.
12 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc.green2 sentences2001The doctrine provides that “a question decided on a former appeal [becomes] the law of the case, not to be questioned in a second or any subsequent appeal involving any branch of the case.” Western States Land v. Lexington Ins., 459 N.W.2d 429, 435 (S.D.1990) (quoting Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 260 (S.D.1976)). 2001The doctrine provides that "a question decided on a former appeal [becomes] the law of the case, not to be questioned in a second or any subsequent appeal involving any branch of the case." Western States Land v. Lexington Ins., 459 N.W.2d 429, 435 (S.D.1990) (quoting Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 260 (S.D.1976)). | 1 | 2 |
Gamble v. Keyesgreen2 sentences1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron 1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron | 1 | 2 |
Hauck v. Clay County Commissiongreen2 sentences2025See Hauck v. Clay Co. Comm., 2023 S.D. 43 , ¶ 4 n.4, 994 N.W.2d 707 , 709 n.4 (“Arguments not raised at the trial level are deemed waived on appeal.”). -18- #30557 [¶36.] Here, as noted in our analysis of the law of the case doctrine, the circuit court did not examine whether Smith Masonry’s attorney fees were warranted and necessary under the circumstances of the case that actually occurred—a case in which this Court determined that Smith Masonry’s mechanic’s lien is valid, that WIPI failed to prove damages to offset the amount of the lien, and that Smith Masonry is entitled to recover the fu 2025See Hauck v. Clay Co. Comm., 2023 S.D. 43 , ¶ 4 n.4, 994 N.W.2d 707 , 709 n.4 (“Arguments not raised at the trial level are deemed waived on appeal.”). -18- #30557 [¶36.] Here, as noted in our analysis of the law of the case doctrine, the circuit court did not examine whether Smith Masonry’s attorney fees were warranted and necessary under the circumstances of the case that actually occurred—a case in which this Court determined that Smith Masonry’s mechanic’s lien is valid, that WIPI failed to prove damages to offset the amount of the lien, and that Smith Masonry is entitled to recover the fu | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. South Dakota Department of Social Servicesgreen1 sentence2024See In re Pooled Advocate Trust, 2012 S.D. 24 , ¶ 24, 813 N.W.2d 130, 139 (noting that the “law of the case rule involves the effect of a previous ruling within one action on a similar issue of law raised subsequently within the same action” whereas “the rules of res judicata apply to previous rulings in an action on a similar determination in a subsequent action”) It is true that the doctrine of res judicata could preclude some ineffective assistance claims raised in a habeas action. | 1 | 1 |
In Re: Pooled Advocate Trustgreen1 sentence2024See In re Pooled Advocate Trust, 2012 S.D. 24 , ¶ 24, 813 N.W.2d 130, 139 (noting that the “law of the case rule involves the effect of a previous ruling within one action on a similar issue of law raised subsequently within the same action” whereas “the rules of res judicata apply to previous rulings in an action on a similar determination in a subsequent action”) It is true that the doctrine of res judicata could preclude some ineffective assistance claims raised in a habeas action. | 1 | 1 |
First W. Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock Yardsgreen2 sentences2001Co., 466 N.W.2d 853, 858 (S.D.1991) (stating that a question decided on a former appeal becomes the law of the case). 2001Co., 466 N.W.2d 853, 858 (S.D.1991) (stating that a question decided on a former appeal becomes the law of the case). | 1 | 1 |
Western States Land & Cattle Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co.green2 sentences2001The doctrine provides that “a question decided on a former appeal [becomes] the law of the case, not to be questioned in a second or any subsequent appeal involving any branch of the case.” Western States Land v. Lexington Ins., 459 N.W.2d 429, 435 (S.D.1990) (quoting Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 260 (S.D.1976)). 2001The doctrine provides that "a question decided on a former appeal [becomes] the law of the case, not to be questioned in a second or any subsequent appeal involving any branch of the case." Western States Land v. Lexington Ins., 459 N.W.2d 429, 435 (S.D.1990) (quoting Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 260 (S.D.1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Monica Stoner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companygreen1 sentence1999Stoner v. State Farm Mutual, 856 F.2d 1195, 1197 (8th Cir.1988). | 1 | 1 |
Verzuh v. Rousegreen2 sentences1999Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo.App.1982); Topps-Toeller, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 47 Mich.App. 720 , 209 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1973). [¶ 22.] The German heirs contend that the law of the case doctrine should not be applied because 1) they were not notified of, and did not participate in, the first trial or appeal; and 2) they presented new evidence at the second hearing which should change the result of the first appeal. 1999Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo.App.1982); Topps-Toeller, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 47 Mich.App. 720 , 209 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1973). [¶ 22.] The German heirs contend that the law of the case doctrine should not be applied because 1) they were not notified of, and did not participate in, the first trial or appeal; and 2) they presented new evidence at the second hearing which should change the result of the first appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Grower, Inc.green2 sentences1999The utility of the policy is "(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end." Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). *259 [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is "palpably 1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron | 1 | 1 |
Topps-Toeller, Inc v. City of Lansinggreen2 sentences1999Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo.App.1982); Topps-Toeller, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 47 Mich.App. 720 , 209 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1973). [¶ 22.] The German heirs contend that the law of the case doctrine should not be applied because 1) they were not notified of, and did not participate in, the first trial or appeal; and 2) they presented new evidence at the second hearing which should change the result of the first appeal. 1999Verzuh v. Rouse, 660 P.2d 1301, 1303 (Colo.App.1982); Topps-Toeller, Inc. v. City of Lansing, 47 Mich.App. 720 , 209 N.W.2d 843, 849 (1973). [¶ 22.] The German heirs contend that the law of the case doctrine should not be applied because 1) they were not notified of, and did not participate in, the first trial or appeal; and 2) they presented new evidence at the second hearing which should change the result of the first appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence1997See Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266, 272 (S.D.1994) (Sabers, J. dissenting); Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 825 , (S.D.1991) (encouraging the submission of special interrogatories to jury regarding the amount awarded for each element of damages as a method for eliminating confusion over calculation of the types of damages awarded and aiding in meaningful appellate review). [5] We note that the plaintiffs did not need to prove this fifth element under the law of the case doctrine raised by Issue 2, infra, ¶ 28. [6] Instruction Number 20 provided, in relevant part, as follows: In this act | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Estate of Siebrasse
green
2 sentences2012“The ‘law of the case’ doctrine is the weaker corollary of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel[,] and stare decisis and is intended to prove some degree of certainty where those doctrines could not yet apply.” Id. [¶24.] As we previously noted: Although the principles of the law of the case doctrine and res judicata are similar, their application differs. 2012“The ‘law of the case’ doctrine is the weaker corollary of the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel[,] and stare decisis and is intended to prove some degree of certainty where those doctrines could not yet apply.” Id. [¶ 24.] As we previously noted: Although the principles of the law of the case doctrine and res judicata are similar, their application differs. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
In Re the Estate of Geier
green
2 sentences2024However, unlike res judicata, most authorities hold that the law of the case doctrine implicates only issue (continued . . .) -9- #30194 [¶25.] In Geier, “we adopted a ‘more expansive determination of the finality of probate orders than’ our earlier decisions had suggested.” Petrik, 2021 S.D. 49, ¶ 16 , 963 N.W.2d at 770 (quoting Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 10 , 809 N.W.2d at 358 ). 2024However, unlike res judicata, most authorities hold that the law of the case doctrine implicates only issue (continued . . .) -9- #30194 [¶25.] In Geier, “we adopted a ‘more expansive determination of the finality of probate orders than’ our earlier decisions had suggested.” Petrik, 2021 S.D. 49, ¶ 16 , 963 N.W.2d at 770 (quoting Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 10 , 809 N.W.2d at 358 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Estate of Petrik
green
2 sentences2024However, unlike res judicata, most authorities hold that the law of the case doctrine implicates only issue (continued . . .) -9- #30194 [¶25.] In Geier, “we adopted a ‘more expansive determination of the finality of probate orders than’ our earlier decisions had suggested.” Petrik, 2021 S.D. 49, ¶ 16 , 963 N.W.2d at 770 (quoting Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 10 , 809 N.W.2d at 358 ). 2024However, unlike res judicata, most authorities hold that the law of the case doctrine implicates only issue (continued . . .) -9- #30194 [¶25.] In Geier, “we adopted a ‘more expansive determination of the finality of probate orders than’ our earlier decisions had suggested.” Petrik, 2021 S.D. 49, ¶ 16 , 963 N.W.2d at 770 (quoting Geier, 2012 S.D. 2, ¶ 10 , 809 N.W.2d at 358 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jenkins v. Haworth, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. 2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Manuel v. Wilka
green
2 sentences2001STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 6.] Our standard of review for summary judgment is well established and briefly is “whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Manuel v. Wilka, 2000 SD 61, ¶ 17 , 610 N.W.2d 458, 462 . 2001STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶ 6.] Our standard of review for summary judgment is well established and briefly is “whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.” Manuel v. Wilka, 2000 SD 61, ¶ 17 , 610 N.W.2d 458, 462 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. 2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Evangelista v. Holland
green
2 sentences2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. 2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C.
green
2 sentences2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. 2001Donahue v. Rodd Electrotype Co. of New England, Inc., 367 Mass. 578 , 328 N.E.2d 505 (1975); Evangelista v. Holland, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 244 , 537 N.E.2d 589 (1989); Jenkins v. Haworth, 572 F.Supp. 591 (1983); Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404 , 649 N.E.2d 1102 (1995). [¶ 29.] We decline to address the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, the scope of a fiduciary duty can be limited by a contractual provision, because we conclude that the doctrine of the law of the case should control here. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Olga Zdanok v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, Frank T. Alexander v. The Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division
green
2 sentences1999Id. 327 F.2d at 953 . [¶ 25.] This situation is atypical in that the German heirs joined the proceedings after the case was remanded for the purposes of determining who the intestate heirs were. 1999Id., 121 F.3d at 1267 . [¶ 24.] In Zdanok v. Glidden Company, Durkee Famous Foods Division, 327 F.2d 944 (1964), two consolidated cases raised the issue of construction of a contract. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
American State Bank v. List-Mayer
green
2 sentences1999The utility of the policy is "(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end." Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). *259 [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is "palpably 1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Commonwealth v. Starr
green
2 sentences1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron 1999The utility of the policy is “(1) to protect settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end.” Commonwealth v. Starr; 541 Pa. 564 , 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 (1995) (citing 21 CJS Courts 149A); American State Bank v. List-Mayer, 350 N.W.2d 44 (S.D.1984). [¶ 21.] The doctrine of the law of the case is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is “palpably erron | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Agostini v. Felton
green
2 sentences1999Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 , 117 S.Ct. 1997 , 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997). 1999Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 , 117 S.Ct. 1997 , 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Disimone v. Browner
green
2 sentences1999For instance, in Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.1997), the court invoked the doctrine even though the petitioners in the case at bar were different from the petitioners in the prior case, holding: Similarly, the fact that different citizen petitioners brought the present suit need not preclude application of the law of the case doctrine because both suits were brought against the same agency, about the same issue, and on behalf of the same citizen population. 1999For instance, in Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.1997), the court invoked the doctrine even though the petitioners in the case at bar were different from the petitioners in the prior case, holding: Similarly, the fact that different citizen petitioners brought the present suit need not preclude application of the law of the case doctrine because both suits were brought against the same agency, about the same issue, and on behalf of the same citizen population. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Stormo v. Strong
green
1 sentence1997See Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266, 272 (S.D.1994) (Sabers, J. dissenting); Stormo v. Strong, 469 N.W.2d 816, 825 , (S.D.1991) (encouraging the submission of special interrogatories to jury regarding the amount awarded for each element of damages as a method for eliminating confusion over calculation of the types of damages awarded and aiding in meaningful appellate review). [5] We note that the plaintiffs did not need to prove this fifth element under the law of the case doctrine raised by Issue 2, infra, ¶ 28. [6] Instruction Number 20 provided, in relevant part, as follows: In this act | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Dwyer v. Christensen
green
2 sentences1967Gamble v. Keyes, 49 S.D. 39 , 206 N.W. 477 , Dwyer v. Christensen, 77 S.D. 381 , 92 N.W.2d 199 , and see Anno. 87 A.L.R.2d 271 . 1967Gamble v. Keyes, 49 S.D. 39 , 206 N.W. 477 , Dwyer v. Christensen, 77 S.D. 381 , 92 N.W.2d 199 , and see Anno. 87 A.L.R.2d 271 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.