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.
11 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carlson v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1997In Carlson v. Hudson, 277 N.W.2d 715, 718 (S.D.1979), this court noted the three ways that a hearing can be required by law: 1) a statutory requirement, 2) an agency rule requirement, or 3) a due process constitutional requirement. 1997In Carlson v. Hudson, 277 N.W.2d 715, 718 (S.D.1979), this court noted the three ways that a hearing can be required by law: 1) a statutory requirement, 2) an agency rule requirement, or 3) a due process constitutional requirement. | 2 | 3 |
Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bankgreen2 sentences1979(Emphasis added.) In Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459, 463 (1973), this Court stated that there are three ways that a hearing can be “required by law”: (1) a statutory requirement, (2) an agency rule requirement, or (3) a due process constitutional requirement. 1979(Emphasis added.) In Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459, 463 (1973), this Court stated that there are three ways that a hearing can be “required by law”: (1) a statutory requirement, (2) an agency rule requirement, or (3) a due process constitutional requirement. | 2 | 2 |
Erickson v. Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2021Safety, 2017 S.D. 75 , ¶¶ 4, 11, 904 N.W.2d 352, 354, 356 (affirming the Department’s disqualification of an appellant’s CDL when no criminal file or transcript from the criminal hearing was offered into evidence at the agency hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. Oslergreen2 sentences2020See Cameron v. Osler, 2019 S.D. 34, ¶ 6 , 930 N.W.2d 661, 663 (“The ancient doctrine of respondeat superior is well established as holding an employer or principal liable for the employee’s or agent’s wrongful acts committed within the scope of the employment or agency.”). 2020See Cameron v. Osler, 2019 S.D. 34, ¶ 6 , 930 N.W.2d 661, 663 (“The ancient doctrine of respondeat superior is well established as holding an employer or principal liable for the employee’s or agent’s wrongful acts committed within the scope of the employment or agency.”). | 1 | 1 |
Moulton v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Moulton v. State, 363 N.W.2d 405, 406-07 (S.D. 1985) (holding that the absence of an agency rule renders SDCL 1-26-14 inapplicable). | 1 | 1 |
Michael Grassmueck v. American Shorthorngreen1 sentence2005See Grassmueck v. American Shorthorn Association, 402 F.3d 833, 838 (8thCir.2005) (applying in pari delicto and the sole actor doctrine, an agency principle of law, to conclude that " 'where the principal and agent are one and the same,' the agent's knowledge is imputed to the principal despite the fact that the agent is acting adversely to the principal”); Leafgreen v. American Family Mut. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kurtz v. SCI
green
2 sentences2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . 2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Goebel v. Warner Transportation
green
2 sentences2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . 2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . 2002Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79 , ¶-10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21 ; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9 , 576 N.W.2d 878, 882 ; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6 , 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Clausen v. Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Because a party cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of an independent contractor, see Clausen v. Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc., 1999 S.D. 66 , ¶ 15, 594 N.W.2d 718, 722 , the District requests that we overturn the jury verdict. [¶34.] We agree with the District that the circuit court’s agency instruction related to principles of tort liability rather than the parties’ breach of contract action. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Freda
green
2 sentences2017To hold otherwise, as the court noted in Freda, would “defeat the statute’s purpose by granting immunity to any defendant so long as he persuaded an intermediary to mail or present the false instrument to the public office.” 817 P.2d at 593 . 2017To hold otherwise, as the court noted in Freda , would “defeat the statute’s purpose by granting immunity to any defendant so long as he persuaded an intermediary to mail or present the false instrument to the public office.” 817 P.2d at 593 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
WATERTOWN COOP. ELEVATOR v. Dept. of Rev.
green
2 sentences2002Elevator Assn. v. State Dept. of Revenue, 2001 SD 56 , ¶ 10, 627 N.W.2d 167 , 171, and great weight to the agency or hearing officer on fact questions. 2002Elevator Assn. v. State Dept. of Revenue, 2001 SD 56 , ¶ 10, 627 N.W.2d 167 , 171, and great weight to the agency or hearing officer on fact questions. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brown v. Douglas School District
green
2 sentences2002Until this court’s recent opinion in Brown v. Douglas School District, 2002 SD 92 , 650 N.W.2d 264 , the standard of review for deposition testimony in administrative appeals was unclear based on recent amendments to SDCL 15-6-52(a). 2002Until this court’s recent opinion in Brown v. Douglas School District, 2002 SD 92 , 650 N.W.2d 264 , the standard of review for deposition testimony in administrative appeals was unclear based on recent amendments to SDCL 15-6-52(a). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.