12 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alberts v. Giebinkgreen2 sentences2001Beckel, 1998 SD 48 at ¶ 21 , 578 N.W.2d at 578 ; Alberts v. Giebink, 299 N.W.2d 454, 455-56 (S.D.1980). 2001Beckel , 1998 SD 48 at ¶21, 578 NW2d at 578 ; Alberts v. Giebink, 299 NW2d 454, 455-56 (SD 1980). | 4 | 4 |
Schoenrock v. Tappegreen2 sentences1998Schoenrock, 419 N.W.2d at 199 ; Alberts v. Giebink, 299 N.W.2d 454, 456 (S.D.1980). [¶ 10.] We have recognized exceptions to toll the running of the statute of limitations. 1998See Schoenrock, 419 N.W.2d at 199 . | 3 | 5 |
Green v. Siegel, Barnett & Schutzgreen2 sentences2001In Green v. Siegel, Barnett & Schutz, 1996 SD 146 , 557 N.W.2d 396 , this Court declined to deviate from the occurrence rule and rejected both discovery and damages rules. 2001In Green v. Siegel, Barnett & Schutz, 1996 SD 146 , 557 N.W.2d 396 , this Court declined to deviate from the occurrence rule and rejected both discovery and damages rules. | 2 | 2 |
Kurylas, Inc. v. Bradskygreen2 sentences1994Haberer, supra; Bradsky, supra; Schoenrock, supra; Hoffman, supra; Shippen, supra. We are to look at what act or omission starts the clock running under the instant facts for statute of limitations purposes. 1994Kurylas, Inc. v. Brodsky, 452 N.W.2d 111 (S.D.1990); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197 (S.D.1988); Hoffman v. Johnson, 374 N.W.2d 117, 122 (S.D.1985); Annot. 18 A.L.R.3d 978 , 986-987 (1968); Meiselman, supra, §§ 5:4, 5:6, 5:7. | 1 | 3 |
Hoffman v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1994Kurylas, Inc. v. Brodsky, 452 N.W.2d 111 (S.D.1990); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197 (S.D.1988); Hoffman v. Johnson, 374 N.W.2d 117, 122 (S.D.1985); Annot. 18 A.L.R.3d 978 , 986-987 (1968); Meiselman, supra, §§ 5:4, 5:6, 5:7. 1990The first case interpreting this statute was Hoffman v. Johnson, supra. Although this case applied another statute of limitations, it effectively introduced the occurrence rule. | 1 | 3 |
CTS Corp. v. Waldburgergreen1 sentence2016For the present action, the “critical distinction is that a reposé'périod'is fixed and its expiration will hot be delayed by estoppel or tolling [.] ” CTS Corp.,'— U.S. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 2183 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Holy Cross Parish v. Huethergreen2 sentences1996See Holy Cross Parish v. Huether, 308 N.W.2d 575, 578 , n * (S.D.1981) (for an early case applying the occurrence rule). 1996See Holy Cross Parish v. Huether, 308 N.W.2d 575, 578 , n * (S.D.1981) (for an early case applying the occurrence rule). | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Billarsgreen2 sentences1991Kurylas, Inc. v. Bradsky, 452 N.W.2d 111, 114-15 (S.D.1990); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197, 199-200 (S.D.1988); Wells v. Billars, 391 N.W.2d 668, 672-73 (S.D.1986) (Morgan, J., dissenting). 1991Kurylas, Inc. v. Bradsky, 452 N.W.2d 111, 114-15 (S.D.1990); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197, 199-200 (S.D.1988); Wells v. Billars, 391 N.W.2d 668, 672-73 (S.D.1986) (Morgan, J., dissenting). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Beckel v. Gerber
green
2 sentences2016“We have consistently held:that [St>CL 15^-2-14.1] is an occurrence rule, which begins to run when the alleged negligent act occurs, not when it is discovered.^ • Beckel v. Gerber, 1998 S.D. 48 , ¶ 9, 578 N.W.2d 574, 576 . 2001Beckel, 1998 SD 48 at ¶ 21 , 578 N.W.2d at 578 ; Alberts v. Giebink, 299 N.W.2d 454, 455-56 (S.D.1980). | 3 | 2001–2016 |
Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P. A.
green
2 sentences2001Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P.A., 262 N.W.2d 508 (S.D.1978). 2001Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P.A., 262 NW2d 508 (SD 1978). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Shippen v. Parrott
green
2 sentences1996Shippen v. Parrott, 506 N.W.2d 82 (S.D.1993). 1996Shippen v. Parrott, *567 506 N.W.2d 82 (S.D.1993). | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Medical Center
green
2 sentences2020However, Pitt-Hart noted SDCL 15-2-14.1 has always been viewed by our cases as a statute of repose by “consistently [holding that the statute] is an occurrence rule, which begins to run when the alleged negligent act occurs.” Id. ¶ 19, 878 N.W.2d at 413 . -9- #28429 that would result from application of the continuous-treatment rule.” 2016 S.D. 33 , ¶ 24, 878 N.W.2d at 415 . [¶21.] Holding that the express language of SDCL 15-2-14.1 created a repose period, the Court delineated the difference between a statute of limitations and a repose statute: A statute of limitations creates a time limit f 2020However, Pitt-Hart noted SDCL 15-2-14.1 has always been viewed by our cases as a statute of repose by “consistently [holding that the statute] is an occurrence rule, which begins to run when the alleged negligent act occurs.” Id. ¶ 19, 878 N.W.2d at 413 . -9- #28429 that would result from application of the continuous-treatment rule.” 2016 S.D. 33 , ¶ 24, 878 N.W.2d at 415 . [¶21.] Holding that the express language of SDCL 15-2-14.1 created a repose period, the Court delineated the difference between a statute of limitations and a repose statute: A statute of limitations creates a time limit f | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Haberer v. Rice
green
1 sentence1994Haberer, supra; Bradsky, supra; Schoenrock, supra; Hoffman, supra; Shippen, supra. We are to look at what act or omission starts the clock running under the instant facts for statute of limitations purposes. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.