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.
10 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1929–2017 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. Nelsongreen2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 3 | 3 |
Burhenn v. Dennis Supply Co.green2 sentences2007Burhenn v. Dennis Supply Co., 2004 SD 91, ¶ 32 , 685 N.W.2d 778, 786 (stating that: “Since [defendant] asserted the affirmative defenses ... it bore the burden of proving those ... claims.”). 2007Burhenn v. Dennis Supply Co., 2004 SD 91, ¶ 32 , 685 N.W.2d 778, 786 (stating that: “Since [defendant] asserted the affirmative defenses ... it bore the burden of proving those ... claims.”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson-El v. Schoemehlgreen2 sentences1997Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 ; accord Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8thCir.1989). 1997Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 ; accord Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8thCir.1989). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edgewater Sun Spot, Inc. v. Pennington & Haben, P.A.
green
2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7 , 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , "[u]nlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial." (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
cluster 701822
green
2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7 , 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , "[u]nlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial." (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Human Services Plaza Partnership v. Huntington National Bank
green
2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7 , 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , "[u]nlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial." (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Luxem
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Perovich
green
2 sentences2005SDCL 23A-44-15 provides: “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of a court.” State v. Perovich, 2001 SD 96, ¶ 34 , 632 N.W.2d 12, 19 . [¶ 17.] The fatal constitutional defect of SDCL 22-5-10 is that it places upon the defendant “the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.” The State cannot constitutionally require a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, i.e., the defendant’s burden of persuasion cannot exceed raising “a reasonable doubt.” It is an u 2005SDCL 23A-44-15 provides: “[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of a court.” State v. Perovich, 2001 SD 96, ¶ 34 , 632 N.W.2d 12, 19 . [¶ 17.] The fatal constitutional defect of SDCL 22-5-10 is that it places upon the defendant “the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.” The State cannot constitutionally require a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, i.e., the defendant’s burden of persuasion cannot exceed raising “a reasonable doubt.” It is an u | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Pocchia v. Nynex Corp.
green
2 sentences2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , “[ujnlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.” (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). 2000As we said in State v. Nelson, 1998 SD 124, ¶ 7 , 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 , "[u]nlike harmless error review under SDCL 23A-44-14 (Rule 52(a)), in which the State has the burden of proving the error was not prejudicial, with plain error analysis the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial." (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 931 , 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States v. Atkinson
green
2 sentences1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( 1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( 1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Young
green
2 sentences1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( 1998United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 737-41 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1779-81 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 62 F.3d 1180 (9thCir.l995), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 303 , 136 L.Ed.2d 221 (1996). [¶ 8.] Plain error requires (1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding's.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 , 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 , 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(alterations in original)( | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences1997Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 ; accord Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8thCir.1989). 1997Harlow, 457 U.S. at 819 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 ; accord Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1048 (8thCir.1989). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Orr
green
2 sentences1993Cf. State v. Orr, 375 N.W.2d 171 (N.D.1988). 1993Cf. State v. Orr, 375 N.W.2d 171 (N.D. 1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
National Bank of Wheaton v. Myers
neutral
1 sentence1929In that view we have not ignored the rule that the matter here considered must usually be pleaded by the maker, who has the burden of proving- the defense (Jones on Collateral Security, § 675) ; or the rule that payment must usually be specially pleaded by the defendant (4 Bancroft’s Code Pleading, p. 3665) ; or the rule that payment may not be shown under a general denial of an allegation in the complaint of a specific balance due (Id.; Codington County Land Co. v. Hill, 48 S. D. 90, 91, 202 N. W. 637 ) ; or the rule that the defendant, pleading payment, has the burden of proving payment (Nat | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Codington County Land Co. v. Hill
neutral
1 sentence1929In that view we have not ignored the rule that the matter here considered must usually be pleaded by the maker, who has the burden of proving- the defense (Jones on Collateral Security, § 675) ; or the rule that payment must usually be specially pleaded by the defendant (4 Bancroft’s Code Pleading, p. 3665) ; or the rule that payment may not be shown under a general denial of an allegation in the complaint of a specific balance due (Id.; Codington County Land Co. v. Hill, 48 S. D. 90, 91, 202 N. W. 637 ) ; or the rule that the defendant, pleading payment, has the burden of proving payment (Nat | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Robinson v. Pierre Independent School District
neutral
1 sentence1929And we have not overlooked the principle that possession by the plaintiff of the note itself, being no evidence of payment, raises a presumption that it is unpaid (1 Bancroft’s Code Pleading, p. 980), and that the production of a negotiable instrument by the plaintiff from his possession raises a presumption of ownership and right to sue thereon. 1 Jones’ Commentaries on Evid. § 302; Id. § 183; Robinson v. Pierre Ind. School Dist., 54 S. D. 387, 223 N. W. 324, 325 . | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.