view rule in South Dakota

1962As indicated in Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243 , 32 N.W.2d 683 , "We are of the view that the rule with respect to proof of value by evidence of sales of other property is correctly stated in Naftzger et al. v. State, 24 Ohio App. 183 , 156 N.E. 614, 615 , as follows: 'By the great weight of authority, when the value of land is in issue, evidence of actual sales of other lands, and prices for which they were sold, is competent, if they are similar in their situation, relative position, and other circumstances relating to value, and such sales are fair and open in the market.

1962As indicated in Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243 , 32 N.W.2d 683 , "We are of the view that the rule with respect to proof of value by evidence of sales of other property is correctly stated in Naftzger et al. v. State, 24 Ohio App. 183 , 156 N.E. 614, 615 , as follows: 'By the great weight of authority, when the value of land is in issue, evidence of actual sales of other lands, and prices for which they were sold, is competent, if they are similar in their situation, relative position, and other circumstances relating to value, and such sales are fair and open in the market.

2010Our statutory rules of construction support this view in that the rule that “the express mention of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of another ‘is merely an auxiliary rule of statutory construction, to be applied with great caution[.]’ ” Argo Oil Corp., 76 S.D. at 74 , 72 N.W.2d at 434 .

2010Our statutory rules of construction support this view in that the rule that “the express mention of one thing in a statute implies the exclusion of another ‘is merely an auxiliary rule of statutory construction, to be applied with great caution[.]’ ” Argo Oil Corp., 76 S.D. at 74 , 72 N.W.2d at 434 .

1976In Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson, 68 S.D. 538 , 5 *92 N.W.2d 314, it was stated that: “This court is committed to the view that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may prevent a party to an oral agreement from invoking the Statute of Frauds, (citations omitted) The elements of proof which invoke an estoppel in such case are three, namely, (a) the oral agreement must be established by satisfactory evidence; (b) the party asserting rights under the agreement must have relied thereon and have indicated such reliance by the performance of acts unequivocally referable to the agreement; and (c

1976In Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson, 68 S.D. 538 , 5 *92 N.W.2d 314, it was stated that: “This court is committed to the view that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may prevent a party to an oral agreement from invoking the Statute of Frauds, (citations omitted) The elements of proof which invoke an estoppel in such case are three, namely, (a) the oral agreement must be established by satisfactory evidence; (b) the party asserting rights under the agreement must have relied thereon and have indicated such reliance by the performance of acts unequivocally referable to the agreement; and (c

1962As indicated in Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243 , 32 N.W.2d 683 , "We are of the view that the rule with respect to proof of value by evidence of sales of other property is correctly stated in Naftzger et al. v. State, 24 Ohio App. 183 , 156 N.E. 614, 615 , as follows: 'By the great weight of authority, when the value of land is in issue, evidence of actual sales of other lands, and prices for which they were sold, is competent, if they are similar in their situation, relative position, and other circumstances relating to value, and such sales are fair and open in the market.

1962As indicated in Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243 , 32 N.W.2d 683 , "We are of the view that the rule with respect to proof of value by evidence of sales of other property is correctly stated in Naftzger et al. v. State, 24 Ohio App. 183 , 156 N.E. 614, 615 , as follows: 'By the great weight of authority, when the value of land is in issue, evidence of actual sales of other lands, and prices for which they were sold, is competent, if they are similar in their situation, relative position, and other circumstances relating to value, and such sales are fair and open in the market.

1926“One who invites or brings error into a case cannot thereafter be heard to complain thereof.” Daudel v. Wolf, 138 N. W. 814 , 30 S. D. 409; Speer v. Phillips, 123 N. W. 722 , 24 S. D. 257; Re Jones, 90 Mo. App. 318 .

1926Co., 168 N. C. 259 , 84 S. E. 274 , L.

1926Co., 168 N. C. 259 , 84 S. E. 274 , L.

1926“One who invites or brings error into a case cannot thereafter be heard to complain thereof.” Daudel v. Wolf, 138 N. W. 814 , 30 S. D. 409; Speer v. Phillips, 123 N. W. 722 , 24 S. D. 257; Re Jones, 90 Mo. App. 318 .

1926“One who invites or brings error into a case cannot thereafter be heard to complain thereof.” Daudel v. Wolf, 138 N. W. 814 , 30 S. D. 409; Speer v. Phillips, 123 N. W. 722 , 24 S. D. 257; Re Jones, 90 Mo. App. 318 .

1922We are of the view that the rule announced in Yarosh v. Sanders (S. D.) 187 N. W. 713 , is applicable and controlling here, and that the findings of the trial court are sustained 'by the evidence.

1922Note — Reported in 191 N. W. 188 .

1921Isaacson v. Parker, 42 S. D. 562, 176 N. W. 653 ; Waldo v. Schmidt, 200 N. Y. 199 , 93 N. E. 477 ; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 , 110 Pac. 294 , 3 Corp. Juris. 1229.

1921Isaacson v. Parker, 42 S. D. 562, 176 N. W. 653 ; Waldo v. Schmidt, 200 N. Y. 199 , 93 N. E. 477 ; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 , 110 Pac. 294 , 3 Corp. Juris. 1229.

1921Isaacson v. Parker, 42 S. D. 562, 176 N. W. 653 ; Waldo v. Schmidt, 200 N. Y. 199 , 93 N. E. 477 ; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 , 110 Pac. 294 , 3 Corp. Juris. 1229.

1921Isaacson v. Parker, 42 S. D. 562, 176 N. W. 653 ; Waldo v. Schmidt, 200 N. Y. 199 , 93 N. E. 477 ; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 , 110 Pac. 294 , 3 Corp. Juris. 1229.

1921Isaacson v. Parker, 42 S. D. 562, 176 N. W. 653 ; Waldo v. Schmidt, 200 N. Y. 199 , 93 N. E. 477 ; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 , 110 Pac. 294 , 3 Corp. Juris. 1229.

1917We are also of the view that the rule announced in the cases of Perreault v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 32 S. D. 275, 144 N. W. 110 , and in Iverson v. Look, 32 S. D. 321, 143 N. W. 332 , must control in this case. [2] Appellant also urges error based upon the remarks of plaintiff's counsel to the jury.

1917We are also of the view that the rule announced in the cases of Perreault v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 32 S. D. 275, 144 N. W. 110 , and in Iverson v. Look, 32 S. D. 321, 143 N. W. 332 , must control in this case. [2] Appellant also urges error based upon the remarks of plaintiff's counsel to the jury.

1914We are of the view that no error was committed in permitting such witnesses to testify, for the reasons stated in State v. Fulwider, 28 S. D. 622, 134 N. W. 807 , State v. Matejousky, 22 S. D. 30, 115 N. W. 96 , and State v. King, 9 S. D. 628, 70 N. W. 1046 .