10 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2015 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. Iannarelligreen1 sentence2011State v. Iannarelli, 2008 S.D. 121 , ¶ 12, 759 N.W.2d 122, 125 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). [¶ 6.] “[T]o assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2008See State v. McKinney, 2005 SD 73, ¶ 10 , 699 N.W.2d 471 , 476 n. 4. 2008See State v. McKinney, 2005 SD 73, ¶ 10 , 699 N.W.2d 471 , 476 n. 4. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Janklowgreen2 sentences2007"The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶42 , 693 NW2d 685, 699 (citing State v. Ball , 2004 SD 9, ¶16 , 675 NW2d 192, 197 ). 2007"The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶42 , 693 NW2d 685, 699 (citing State v. Ball , 2004 SD 9, ¶16 , 675 NW2d 192, 197 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cottrillgreen2 sentences2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). 2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guthmillergreen2 sentences2006“The legislature has determined that a sex crime against a child is a serious concern and one which should be punished severely.” State v. Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 48 , 667 N.W.2d 295, 311 (reaffirming that the utmost deference should be given to the Legislature and the sentencing court in cases involving sex crimes against a child, in the context of criminal pedophilia). 2006“The legislature has determined that a sex crime against a child is a serious concern and one which should be punished severely.” State v. Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 48 , 667 N.W.2d 295, 311 (reaffirming that the utmost deference should be given to the Legislature and the sentencing court in cases involving sex crimes against a child, in the context of criminal pedophilia). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gehrkegreen2 sentences1998State v. Gehrke, 491 N.W.2d 421, 423 (S.D.1992). 1998State v. Gehrke, 491 N.W.2d 421, 423 (S.D. 1992). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garreau
green
1 sentence2015State v. Garreau, 2015 S.D. 36 , ¶ 7, 864 N.W.2d 771, 774 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lockyer v. Andrade
green
2 sentences2014The gross disproportionality standard is only applicable in the “exceedingly rare and extreme case.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 , 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1173 , 155 L. 2014The gross disproportionality standard is only applicable in the “exceedingly rare and extreme case.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 , 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1173 , 155 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bonner
green
2 sentences2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). 2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Sparks
green
2 sentences2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). 2007However, when a defendant challenges a sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, our review is conducted using the gross disproportionality standard set out in State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶17 , 577 NW2d 575, 580 . "[T]his Court reviews 'the determination of whether the 180-day period has expired as well as what constitutes good cause for delay under a de novo standard.' " State v. Cottrill , 2003 SD 38, ¶6 , 660 NW2d 624, 628 (quoting State v. Sparks , 1999 SD 115, ¶5 , 600 NW2d 550, 553 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Ball
green
2 sentences2007"The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶42 , 693 NW2d 685, 699 (citing State v. Ball , 2004 SD 9, ¶16 , 675 NW2d 192, 197 ). 2007"The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Janklow, 2005 SD 25, ¶42 , 693 NW2d 685, 699 (citing State v. Ball , 2004 SD 9, ¶16 , 675 NW2d 192, 197 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Krahwinkel
green
2 sentences2006Our only analogous case on this issue is Krahwinkel , which addressed a gross disproportionality claim on a civil penalty for an overweight truck violation. 2002 SD 160, ¶38 , 656 N.W.2d at 464-65 . 2006Our only analogous case on this issue is Krahwinkel , which addressed a gross disproportionality claim on a civil penalty for an overweight truck violation. 2002 SD 160, ¶38 , 656 N.W.2d at 464-65 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. McKinney
green
1 sentence2006As we recently explained, "[initially we review the sentencing court's decision under the abuse of discretion standard,” but "for assertions of constitutional error the standard of review under both our federal and state constitutions is the gross disproportionality test.” McKinney II, 2005 SD 74, ¶ 26 , 699 N.W.2d at 468 (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pugh
green
2 sentences2003Pugh, 2002 SD 16 at ¶ 18 , 640 N.W.2d at 84-85 . 2003Pugh, 2002 SD 16 at ¶ 18 , 640 N.W.2d at 84-85 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.