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 1956–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. VanDamgreen2 sentences2016In United States v. Van-Dam, the court held that while remand to a different judge is the usual remedy, San-tobello does not require it in all cases. 493 F.3d 1194, 1206 (10th Cir.2007), The tenth circuit ruled similarly in United States v. Oakes, holding that the general rule of remand to a different judge is not a rigid rule, and remand to the same judge is allowed. 680 F.3d 1243, 1247 (10th Cir.2012). [¶ 19.] The majority opinion seems to concede that Santobello does not require remand to a different judge but allows the states discretion. 2016In United States v. VanDam, the court held that while remand to a different judge is the usual remedy, Santobello does not require it in all cases. 493 F.3d 1194, 1206 (10th Cir. 2007), The tenth circuit ruled similarly in United States v. Oakes, holding that the general rule of remand to a different judge is not a rigid rule, and remand to the same judge is allowed. 680 F.3d 1243, 1247 (10th Cir. 2012). [¶19.] The majority opinion seems to concede that Santobello does not require remand to a different judge but allows the states discretion. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Oakesgreen2 sentences2016In United States v. Van-Dam, the court held that while remand to a different judge is the usual remedy, San-tobello does not require it in all cases. 493 F.3d 1194, 1206 (10th Cir.2007), The tenth circuit ruled similarly in United States v. Oakes, holding that the general rule of remand to a different judge is not a rigid rule, and remand to the same judge is allowed. 680 F.3d 1243, 1247 (10th Cir.2012). [¶ 19.] The majority opinion seems to concede that Santobello does not require remand to a different judge but allows the states discretion. 2016In United States v. VanDam, the court held that while remand to a different judge is the usual remedy, Santobello does not require it in all cases. 493 F.3d 1194, 1206 (10th Cir. 2007), The tenth circuit ruled similarly in United States v. Oakes, holding that the general rule of remand to a different judge is not a rigid rule, and remand to the same judge is allowed. 680 F.3d 1243, 1247 (10th Cir. 2012). [¶19.] The majority opinion seems to concede that Santobello does not require remand to a different judge but allows the states discretion. | 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). [¶ 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). *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 | 1 | 1 |
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 | 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 sentences2012Indeed, the doctrine “is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is palpably erroneous and if it is competent for the court to correct it on the second appeal.” Siebrasse, 2006 S.D. 83 , ¶ 17, 722 N.W.2d at 91 . 2012Indeed, the doctrine “is not a rigid rule, and will not be invoked on a second appeal if the prior decision is palpably erroneous and if it is competent for the court to correct it on the second appeal.” Siebrasse, 2006 S.D. 83 , ¶ 17, 722 N.W.2d at 91 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Arneson v. Olson
green
2 sentences1996Arneson, 270 N.W.2d at 137 . 1996Arneson, 270 N.W.2d at 137 . | 2 | 1996–1996 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 319 , 66 S. Ct. at 160 . 2022Id. at 319 , 66 S. Ct. at 160 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Wright
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Wright, 1999 S.D. 50 , ¶ 24, 593 N.W.2d at 802 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Wright, 1999 S.D. 50 , ¶ 24, 593 N.W.2d at 802 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Estate of Jetter
green
2 sentences2006“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 erroneous’ and if it ‘is competent for the court to correct it on the second appeal.’ ” Estate of Jetter, 1999 SD 33, ¶ 21 , 590 N.W.2d 254, 259 . 2006“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 erroneous’ and if it ‘is competent for the court to correct it on the second appeal.’ ” Estate of Jetter, 1999 SD 33, ¶ 21 , 590 N.W.2d 254, 259 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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). [¶ 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). *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 | 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 |
Katz v. BD. OF MED. & OSTEOPATHIC EXAM.
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Palmisano v. News Syndicate Co.
green
1 sentence1993Palmisano v. News Syndicate Co., 130 F.Supp. 17 (S.D.N.Y.1955). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Yakus v. United States
green
2 sentences1956In determining what it may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental co-ordination.” Chief Justice Stone wrote in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , at page 425, 64 S.Ct 680 , at page 668, 88 L.Ed. 834 , as follows: “As we have said: ‘The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality * * * to perform its function.’ * * * Hence it is irrelevant that Congress might itself have prescri 1956In determining what it may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental co-ordination.” Chief Justice Stone wrote in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , at page 425, 64 S.Ct 680 , at page 668, 88 L.Ed. 834 , as follows: “As we have said: ‘The Constitution has never been regarded as denying to the Congress the necessary resources of flexibility and practicality * * * to perform its function.’ * * * Hence it is irrelevant that Congress might itself have prescri | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.