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 1970–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knight v. Merhigegreen1 sentence2021In so doing, the court considered several formulations for determining whether an actor created an increased risk of harm, including the Third Restatement’s test that looks to whether the “actor’s conduct . . . results in greater risk to another than the other would have faced absent the conduct.” Merhige, 133 So. 3d at 1148 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2008In such cases, the expense of recovery is a ‘further pecuniary loss’ recoverable under the Restatement rule.” State v. Taylor, 506 N.W.2d 767, 768 (Iowa 1993) (citing Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 927(2)(b) (1977) (other citations omitted) (emphasis added)). 2008In such cases, the expense of recovery is a ‘further pecuniary loss’ recoverable under the Restatement rule.” State v. Taylor, 506 N.W.2d 767, 768 (Iowa 1993) (citing Restatement (Second) of ToRts § 927(2)(b) (1977) (other citations omitted) (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Braun v. New Hope Townshipgreen2 sentences2004See Braun, 2002 SD 67 at ¶ 15 , 646 N.W.2d at 741 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 452(1) & 452(2)). 2004See Braun, 2002 SD 67 at ¶ 15 , 646 N.W.2d at 741 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 452(1) & 452(2)). | 1 | 1 |
Kimball v. City of Sioux Fallsgreen2 sentences1986Restatement (Second) of Torts § 368, Comment e. This Restatement rule was discussed and its application explained in Kimball v. City of Sioux Falls, 71 S.D. 35, 41 , 20 N.W.2d 873, 875 (1945). 1986Restatement (Second) of Torts § 368, Comment e. This Restatement rule was discussed and its application explained in Kimball v. City of Sioux Falls, 71 S.D. 35, 41 , 20 N.W.2d 873, 875 (1945). | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co.green2 sentences1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). 1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). | 1 | 1 |
Harsha v. State Savings Bankgreen2 sentences1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). 1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
National Bank of South Dakota v. Leir
green
2 sentences2023In regard to the Restatement factors, Lier identified them as matters to consider when deciding what constitutes a “discretionary function.” Id. at 848 . 2023In regard to the Restatement factors, Lier identified them as matters to consider when deciding what constitutes a “discretionary function.” Id. at 848 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Mulder v. Tague
green
2 sentences2008Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433). [¶ 63.] Dr. Schwartz argues that, without setting out the above factors in an instruction, the jury could not properly evaluate the significance of the role that the surgery played in Kostel’s postoperative condition in the context of other factors such as the degree of deterioration in her pre and postoperative physical condition the state of her mental health, and the extent to which Dr. Teuber may have exploited her mental health for his own ends by sending her the anonymous letter. [¶ 64.] Dr. Schwartz does not cite any authority that woul 2008Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433). [¶ 63.] Dr. Schwartz argues that, without setting out the above factors in an instruction, the jury could not properly evaluate the significance of the role that the surgery played in Kostel’s postoperative condition in the context of other factors such as the degree of deterioration in her pre and postoperative physical condition the state of her mental health, and the extent to which Dr. Teuber may have exploited her mental health for his own ends by sending her the anonymous letter. [¶ 64.] Dr. Schwartz does not cite any authority that woul | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Dowling
green
2 sentences1986The Dowling court goes on to say: “In view of this case law it is important that we examine the facts of this case and whether this affidavit could possibly produce a different result on a new trial.” Id. 1986The Dowling court goes on to say: "In view of this case law it is important that we examine the facts of this case and whether this affidavit could possibly produce a different result on a new trial." Id. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Meyer v. Nottger
green
2 sentences1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). 1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co.
green
2 sentences1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). 1984Powell v. Khodari-Intergreen Co., 334 N.W.2d 127, 129 (Iowa 1983); see also Harsha v. State Savings Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1984); Meyer v. Nottger, 241 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1976); Amsden v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 203 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Greer v. City of Lennox
green
2 sentences1970Greer v. City of Lennox, 79 S.D. 28 , 107 N.W.2d 337 . 1970Greer v. City of Lennox, 79 S.D. 28 , 107 N.W.2d 337 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.