12 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kaisergreen2 sentences1996State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995) (citations and quotations omitted). [If 8] The first test is whether Pulfrey’s sentence “meets the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally.” Pulfrey argues other states do not allow life sentences in voluntary manslaughter cases. 1996“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory limits is not reviewable on appeal.” State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995); State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665, 667 (S.D.1994); Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 879 . [¶ 7] The two-fold test to determine whether a sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience is: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, “as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reaso | 4 | 4 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences1996Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d at 726 ; Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). 1995Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Phippsgreen2 sentences1996Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d at 726 ; Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). 1995Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Shilvock-Havirdgreen2 sentences1996Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d at 726 ; Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). 1995Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dowlinggreen2 sentences1994See State v. Dowling, 87 S.D. 532 , 211 N.W.2d 572 (1973). 1994See State v. Dowling, 87 S.D. 532 , 211 N.W.2d 572 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences1997“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory -limits is not reviewable on appeal.” Peterson, 1996 SD 140 at ¶ 20 , 557 N.W.2d at 393 (citations omitted). [¶ 25.] This court has developed a two-fold test to determine whether the sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally. 1997“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory -limits is not reviewable on appeal.” Peterson, 1996 SD 140 at ¶ 20 , 557 N.W.2d at 393 (citations omitted). [¶ 25.] This court has developed a two-fold test to determine whether the sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Packgreen1 sentence1996“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory limits is not reviewable on appeal.” State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995); State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665, 667 (S.D.1994); Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 879 . [¶ 7] The two-fold test to determine whether a sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience is: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, “as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reaso | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bult v. Leapley
green
2 sentences1996“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory limits is not reviewable on appeal.” State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995); State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665, 667 (S.D.1994); Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 879 . [¶ 7] The two-fold test to determine whether a sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience is: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, “as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reaso 1996Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d at 726 ; Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; State v. Shilvock-Havird, 472 N.W.2d 773, 779 (S.D.1991); State v. Reed, 451 N.W.2d 409, 411 (S.D.1990); State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 132 (S.D.1982). | 3 | 1995–1996 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2003We cannot accept the premise that while the State's interest in drug interdiction is compelling, a few seconds delay for non-entry sniffing the exterior of a vehicle by a dog already on the scene is constitutionally unreasonable. [4] *688 [¶ 12.] Our analysis is guided by a two-fold test: [1] "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception" and [2] "whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20 , 88 S.Ct. at 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 906 . 2003We cannot accept the premise that while the State's interest in drug interdiction is compelling, a few seconds delay for non-entry sniffing the exterior of a vehicle by a dog already on the scene is constitutionally unreasonable. [4] *688 [¶ 12.] Our analysis is guided by a two-fold test: [1] "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception" and [2] "whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20 , 88 S.Ct. at 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 906 . | 2 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Lufkins
green
2 sentences1994Chlamydial infections are even more common than gonorrhea, and like gonorrhea are a frequent cause of pelvic inflammatory disease." 5A Lawyers' Medical Cyclopedia of Personal Injuries and Allied Specialties § 36.18(A) (3rd ed. 1986). [2] This court, in reviewing Willis' motion for new trial based on the newly discovered evidence, applied the two-fold test as set out in Lufkins, 309 N.W.2d at 336 . 1994This court, in reviewing Willis’ motion for new trial based on the newly discovered evidence, applied the two-fold test as set out in Lufkins, 309 N.W.2d at 336 . | 2 | 1986–1994 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2005In Loop , this Court stated that “[b]efore a defendant succeeds on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he must normally fulfill the two-fold test stated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).” Id. at 142 (emphasis in original). 2005In Loop , this Court stated that “[b]efore a defendant succeeds on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, he must normally fulfill the two-fold test stated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).” Id. at 142 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Lykken
green
1 sentence1996“It is settled law in this state that absent a sentence which is so excessive in duration that it shocks the conscience of the court, a sentence that is within statutory limits is not reviewable on appeal.” State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995); State v. Pack, 516 N.W.2d 665, 667 (S.D.1994); Bult, 507 N.W.2d at 327 ; Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 879 . [¶ 7] The two-fold test to determine whether a sentence is so constitutionally offensive as to shock the conscience is: First, is the punishment so excessive or so cruel, “as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reaso | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Willis
green
2 sentences1994Willis, 396 N.W.2d at 153 . 1994Willis, 396 N.W.2d at 153 . | 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.