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 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Watsongreen1 sentence2022See In re Est. of Watson, 2003 S.D. 142 , ¶¶ 5, 20, 673 N.W.2d 60, 61, 64 (upholding a circuit court’s apportionment of $1 to beneficiary when the relationship between the decedent and beneficiary was “almost nonexistent”). | 1 | 1 |
Melbourn v. Benhamgreen2 sentences1985Accordingly, plaintiffs are barred from pursuing the wrongful death claim by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes "relitigation of an essential fact or issue involved in the earlier suit." Cook v. Rezek, 296 N.W.2d 731, 733 (S.D.1980) (quoting from Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335, 337 (S.D.1980). 1985Accordingly, plaintiffs are barred from pursuing the wrongful death claim by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes “relit-igation of an essential fact or issue involved in the earlier suit.” Cook v. Rezek, 296 N.W.2d 731, 733 (S.D.1980) (quoting from Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335, 337 (S.D.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Rezekgreen2 sentences1985Accordingly, plaintiffs are barred from pursuing the wrongful death claim by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes "relitigation of an essential fact or issue involved in the earlier suit." Cook v. Rezek, 296 N.W.2d 731, 733 (S.D.1980) (quoting from Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335, 337 (S.D.1980). 1985Accordingly, plaintiffs are barred from pursuing the wrongful death claim by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which precludes “relit-igation of an essential fact or issue involved in the earlier suit.” Cook v. Rezek, 296 N.W.2d 731, 733 (S.D.1980) (quoting from Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335, 337 (S.D.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Gifford v. Bowlinggreen2 sentences1974See Gifford v. Bowling, 86 S.D. 615 , 200 N.W.2d 379 . *883 My concurrence should not in any way be construed as an approval of the manner in which the wrongful death claim was settled by counsel for the hospital with unrepresented claimants, including minor children. 1974See Gifford v. Bowling, 86 S.D. 615 , 200 N.W.2d 379 . *883 My concurrence should not in any way be construed as an approval of the manner in which the wrongful death claim was settled by counsel for the hospital with unrepresented claimants, including minor children. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosales v. Battle
green
2 sentences2010Id. 2010Id. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Peterson v. Hohm
green
2 sentences2001FACTS [¶ 2.] In Peterson v. Hohm, 2000 SD 27 , 607 N.W.2d 8 , this Court affirmed a judgment holding that a wrongful death claim brought by Peterson’s estate was time-barred because the action was filed in state court after the statute of limitations had run. 2001FACTS [¶ 2.] In Peterson v. Hohm, 2000 SD 27 , 607 N.W.2d 8 , this Court affirmed a judgment holding that a wrongful death claim brought by Peterson’s estate was time-barred because the action was filed in state court after the statute of limitations had run. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Steckman v. Silver Moon, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Steckman, 77 S.D. at 212 , 90 N.W.2d at 173 . 2001Steckman, 77 S.D. at 212 , 90 N.W.2d at 173 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Estate of Hutman
green
1 sentence2022In determining who shall pursue a wrongful death claim on behalf of an estate, the “[circuit] court must have confidence that the person will demonstrate the utmost loyalty, impartiality, and integrity, and that the person does not have an interest in pending litigation, or bias or prejudice, such that the appointment would be adverse to the interest of those to be served by the appointment.” Hutman, 705 N.E.2d at 1065 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Beagle v. Walden
green
2 sentences2005That legislature corrected the court's interpretation and clarified its statute to only "apply to, and require UIM coverage for, a wrongful death claim where the deceased is an `insured.'" Id. (citing Nickolson v. Nationwide Mut. 2005That legislature corrected the court’s interpretation and clarified its statute to only “apply to, and require UIM coverage for, a wrongful death claim where the deceased is an ‘insured.’ ” Id. (citing Nicholson v. Nationwide Mut. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. Burns
green
2 sentences2004Peterson, 2001 SD 126 at ¶ 46 , 635 N.W.2d at 572 ; SDCL 15-2-14.1. 2004Peterson, 2001 SD 126 at ¶ 46 , 635 N.W.2d at 572 ; SDCL 15-2-14.1. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gates v. Richardson
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 198-201 . [¶ 29.] North Dakota embraces the zone of danger test. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.