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 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc.green2 sentences2008CorTrust relies on Johnson v. Kreiser’s, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D.1988), as support for this proposition. [¶ 10.] In Johnson , this Court adopted a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. 1993WRONGFUL DISCHARGE This Court acknowledged a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine in Johnson v. Kreiser’s, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D.1988). | 3 | 3 |
Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc.green2 sentences1990South Dakota has specifically rejected the “transplantation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings into the foreign soil of the employment-at-will doctrine.” Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D.1988); Blote v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 422 N.W.2d 834 (S.D.1988); French v. Dell Rapids Community Hosp., Inc., 432 N.W.2d 285 (S.D.1988). 1989In Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D.1988), we said: “We ... join the Supreme Court of Kansas in rejecting transplantation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing into the foreign soil of the employment-at-will doctrine.” Finally, Peterson argues that summary judgment was improper because there is no genuine issue of material fact and because this court has not definitively rejected his causes of action, he has a right to a trial. | 2 | 2 |
Niesent v. Homestake Mining Co. of Californiagreen2 sentences2024However, in Niesent we further explained that “[p]ublic policy is found in the letter or purpose of a constitutional or statutory provision or scheme, or in a judicial decision.” Id. [¶25.] Here, there is no need to create a common law tort remedy when the Legislature has created robust statutory remedies for an employee whose employment has been adversely impacted because of a disability, or other recognized protected status under SDCL chapter 20-13. 2024See Niesent v. Homestake Mining Co. of Cal., 505 N.W.2d 781, 783 (S.D. 1993) (holding that to state a cause of action under the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine, “the employee must plead and prove that a substantial public policy may have been violated.”). | 1 | 2 |
Larson v. Kreiser's, Inc.green2 sentences1989As this court has recently observed, "[d]espite numerous challenges, the employment-at-will doctrine is still the law in South Dakota." Larson v. Kreiser's Inc., 427 N.W.2d 833, 834 (S.D.1988). 1989As this court has recently observed, “[d]espite numerous challenges, the employment-at-will doctrine is still the law in South Dakota.” Larson v. Kreiser’s Inc., 427 N.W.2d 833, 834 (S.D.1988). | 1 | 2 |
Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc., 437 N.W.2d 528, 529 (S.D.1989); Stedillie v. American Colloid Co., 767 F.Supp. 1502, 1506 (D.S.D.1991). 2000See Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc., 437 N.W.2d 528, 529 (S.D.1989); Stedillie v. American Colloid Co., 767 F.Supp. 1502, 1506 (D.S.D.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Paint Brush Corp. v. Neugreen2 sentences2000See Paint Brush Corp. v. Neu, 1999 SD 120, ¶ 36 , 599 N.W.2d 384, 393 . 2000See Paint Brush Corp. v. Neu, 1999 SD 120, ¶ 36 , 599 N.W.2d 384, 393 . | 1 | 1 |
Stedillie v. American Colloid Co.green2 sentences2000See Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc., 437 N.W.2d 528, 529 (S.D.1989); Stedillie v. American Colloid Co., 767 F.Supp. 1502, 1506 (D.S.D.1991). 2000See Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc., 437 N.W.2d 528, 529 (S.D.1989); Stedillie v. American Colloid Co., 767 F.Supp. 1502, 1506 (D.S.D.1991). | 1 | 1 |
Morriss v. Coleman Co.green2 sentences1988See Morriss v. Coleman Co., Inc., 241 Kan. 501, 517-18 , 738 P.2d 841, 851 (1987): After a careful consideration of these various cases, pro and con, the majority of the court has concluded that the principle of law stated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205, that every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement, is overly broad and should not be applicable to employment-at-will contracts. 1988See Morriss v. Coleman Co., Inc., 241 Kan. 501, 517-18 , 738 P.2d 841, 851 (1987): After a careful consideration of these various cases, pro and con, the majority of the court has concluded that the principle of law stated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205, that every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement, is overly broad and should not be applicable to employment-at-will contracts. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Osterkamp v. Alkota Manufacturing, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988In this situation, Breen was a terminable-at-will employee under SDCL 60-4-4. 1 This Court has recognized two factual patterns which create an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: 1) where an employer failed to comply with termination procedures promulgated in its employee handbook (Osterkamp v. Alkota Mfg., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1983); or 2) where the employee accepted employment after being given a specific oral promise regarding future promotion to a certain position (Larson, 427 N.W.2d at 834 ). 1988In this situation, Breen was a terminable-at-will employee under SDCL 60-4-4. [1] This Court has recognized two factual patterns which create an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: 1) where an employer failed to comply with termination procedures promulgated in its employee handbook ( Osterkamp v. Alkota Mfg., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 275 (S.D.1983); or 2) where the employee accepted employment after being given a specific oral promise regarding future promotion to a certain position ( Larson, 427 N.W.2d at 834 ). | 4 | 1988–1995 |
Blote v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rapid City
green
2 sentences1990South Dakota has specifically rejected the “transplantation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings into the foreign soil of the employment-at-will doctrine.” Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D.1988); Blote v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 422 N.W.2d 834 (S.D.1988); French v. Dell Rapids Community Hosp., Inc., 432 N.W.2d 285 (S.D.1988). 1988Blote, supra. For these reasons, I would reverse summary judgment on breach of implied contract and wrongful termination of employment. | 2 | 1988–1990 |
Weber v. FIRST FEDERAL BANK
neutral
1 sentence2008Because the retaliatory discharge tort is independent of the contractual employment relationship, Tie- *753 de’s claim falls outside the employment related claim that we found preempted in Weber, 523 N.W.2d at 721-22 . [¶ 16.] CorTrust, however, correctly argues that the NBA may preempt conflicting state law employment claims regardless of any distinction between claims based in tort and contract. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company
green
2 sentences1993Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207 , 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968); Gross v. Gross, 491 N.W.2d 751 (S.D.1992). *783 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE This Court acknowledged a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine in Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D.1988). 1993Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207 , 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968); Gross v. Gross, 491 N.W.2d 751 (S.D.1992). *783 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE This Court acknowledged a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine in Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D.1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Gross v. Gross
green
1 sentence1993Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Co., 83 S.D. 207 , 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968); Gross v. Gross, 491 N.W.2d 751 (S.D.1992). *783 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE This Court acknowledged a public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine in Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D.1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
French v. Dell Rapids Community Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990South Dakota has specifically rejected the “transplantation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings into the foreign soil of the employment-at-will doctrine.” Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D.1988); Blote v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 422 N.W.2d 834 (S.D.1988); French v. Dell Rapids Community Hosp., Inc., 432 N.W.2d 285 (S.D.1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.