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 1937–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, Inc.green2 sentences2006Jur. 2d Counterclaim, Recoupment, & Setoffs § 6 (citations omitted); see also First Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, 394 N.W.2d 709, 716 (S.D.1986) ("The allowance of a set-off recognizes the injustice resulting from compelling a creditor to pay the bankrupt estate the full value of a claim owed, while at the same time requiring the creditor to forfeit a claim due from the debtor."). [¶ 21.] In this case, the trial court did not allow Griffiths to amend his pleadings to assert a counterclaim by which he could recover affirmatively. 2006Jur. 2d Counterclaim, Recoupment, & Setoffs § 6 (citations omitted); see also First Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. Kehn Ranch, 394 N.W.2d 709, 716 (S.D.1986) (“The allowance of a set-off recognizes the injustice resulting from compelling a creditor to pay the bankrupt estate the full value of a claim owed, while at the same time requiring the creditor to forfeit a claim due from the debtor.”). [¶21.] In this case, the trial court did not allow Griffiths to amend his pleadings to assert a counterclaim by which he could recover affirmatively. | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Huntgreen2 sentences1994This court “has long recognized the value of this doctrine [of stare decisis]; but at the same time we have not been blind to its theoretical inherent premise of being in harmony with extant public policy.” Hunt v. Hunt, 309 N.W.2d 818, 822 (S.D.1981). 1994This court "has long recognized the value of this doctrine [of stare decisis]; but at the same time we have not been blind to its theoretical inherent premise of being in harmony with extant public policy." Hunt v. Hunt, 309 N.W.2d 818, 822 (S.D.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Watkins v. Ebachgreen2 sentences1992We held in Watkins v. Ebach, 291 N.W.2d 765, 767 (S.D.1980): “Although it is true this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed.” In that case, we adopted the prevailing rule that damages for loss of future earnings should be reduced to present value. 1992However, therein we went on to say that the record did not support the giving of such an instruction because the appellant/defendant “offered no testimony upon which the jury could have made an intelligent decision on reducing the award for loss of future earnings to present value.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Printup v. Kennergreen2 sentences1981See Printup v. Kenner, 43 S.D. 473 , 180 N.W. 512 (1920). 1981See Printup v. Kenner, 43 S.D. 473 , 180 N.W. 512 (1920). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kingsbury v. Chapin
green
2 sentences1937Kingsbury v. Chapin, 196 Mass. 533 , 82 N. E. 700 , 13 Ann. 1937Kingsbury v. Chapin, 196 Mass. 533 , 82 N. E. 700 , 13 Ann. | 2 | 1937–1937 |
United States v. Brunner
green
2 sentences1986United States v. Brunner, 282 F.2d 535 (10th Cir.1960); Krajci v. Mt. 1986United States v. Brunner, 282 F.2d 535 (10th Cir.1960); Krajci v. Mt. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Walter Nelson, Jr.
green
2 sentences1984In any event, what the court stated in United States v. Nelson, supra, is applicable here: If out-of-court declarations were only admissible when the declarant was also available for cross-examination, the value of the rule allowing the admission of coconspirator’s statements would be significantly diminished. 1984In many, if not most, cases the coconspirator will himself be subject to criminal charges and will be unwilling to testify. 603 F.2d at 46 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Edward J. Russell v. City of Wildwood
green
1 sentence1980Likewise, in Russell v. City of Wildwood, 428 F.2d 1176 (3rd Cir. 1970), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that in the absence of any evidence and guidance regarding the application of a present value instruction, a jury verdict could not stand. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Davis v. Holy Terror Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. 1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Allen v. Martley
green
2 sentences1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. 1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Weidner v. Lineback
green
2 sentences1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. 1980Co., 20 S.D. 399 , 107 N.W. 374 (1906), and has been reaffirmed as the law in South Dakota in Allen v. Martley, 77 S.D. 133 , 87 N.W.2d 355 (1958), and Weidner v. Lineback, 82 S.D. 8 , *767 140 N.W.2d 597 (1966). 1 Although it is true that this court has never held that the trial court must give a present value instruction regarding loss of future earnings, we think that this requirement should now be imposed. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Nannestad v. Nannestad
green
2 sentences1953The case of Nannestad v. Nannestad, 44 S.D. 241 , 183 N.W. 541 , does not seem to be in complete harmony with our holding in the instant case but that decision demonstrates we believe the value of the rule we here invoke that a trial court shall make a specific finding of a parent’s unfitness before denying custody. 1953The case of Nannestad v. Nannestad, 44 S.D. 241 , 183 N.W. 541 , does not seem to be in complete harmony with our holding in the instant case but that decision demonstrates we believe the value of the rule we here invoke that a trial court shall make a specific finding of a parent’s unfitness before denying custody. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.