generally recognized rule in South Dakota

8 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2006 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Juvenile Appeal (83-De)green conn · 1983 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2
In Re Pardeegreen michctapp · 1991 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2
State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Newmangreen orctapp · 1980 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2
State in Interest of JJTgreen utahctapp · 1994 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah.Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, . . . the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue." The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2
In Re Interest of VBgreen neb · 1985 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2
Homes Development Company v. Simmonsgreen sd · 1955 · cited in 2 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1980–1995 2 sentences 1995In Homes Development Co. v. Simmons, 75 S.D. 575, 580 , 70 N.W.2d 527, 530 (1955) (deeds did not refer to irrigation ditch easement or water right), we acknowledged the generally recognized rule: [W]here, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude is imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude, at the time of the severance, is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate, then upon a severance of the ownership, a grant of the right to continue such use arises by implication of law. 1995In Homes Development Co. v. Simmons, 75 S.D. 575, 580 , 70 N.W.2d 527, 530 (1955) (deeds did not refer to irrigation ditch easement or water right), we acknowledged the generally recognized rule: [W]here, during the unity of title, an apparently permanent and obvious servitude is imposed on one part of an estate in favor of another part, which servitude, at the time of the severance, is in use and is reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the other part of the estate, then upon a severance of the ownership, a grant of the right to continue such use arises by implication of law.	1	2
Matter of RZFgreen sd · 1979 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See In re R.Z.F., 284 N.W.2d 879, 881 (S.D.1979). [3] A close reading of the Court's authorities reflects that each case applies a generally recognized requirement for, rather than an abuse and neglect exception to, the bar of res judicata.	1	1
Goodsman v. Jannsengreen iowa · 1944 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000In re Mead’s Estate, 221 Wis. 311, 277 N.W. 694 , 701 (1938), reh’g denied, 227 Wis. 311 , 279 N.W. 18 (1938); Goodsman v. Jannsen, 234 Iowa 925 , 14 N.W.2d 647, 648 (1944); see generally Annotation, What Constitutes or Establishes Beneficiary’s Acceptance or Renunciation of Devise or Bequest, 93 A.L.R.2d 8 , § 4 (1964) (citing cases). 2000In re Mead’s Estate, 221 Wis. 311, 277 N.W. 694 , 701 (1938), reh’g denied, 227 Wis. 311 , 279 N.W. 18 (1938); Goodsman v. Jannsen, 234 Iowa 925 , 14 N.W.2d 647, 648 (1944); see generally Annotation, What Constitutes or Establishes Beneficiary’s Acceptance or Renunciation of Devise or Bequest, 93 A.L.R.2d 8 , § 4 (1964) (citing cases).	1	1
Daniel Cowin v. Charles S. Breslergreen cadc · 1984 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997Cowin v. Bresler, 741 F.2d 410, 415 (D.C.Cir.1984); Engstrand, 516 N.W.2d at 799 ; Meyerson, 448 N.W.2d at 133 .	1	1
Jeff R. Arent v. Distribution Sciences, Inc.green ca8 · 1992 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997The generally recognized rule for determining whether a cause of action belongs to the corporation, rather than to an individual shareholder, is to ascertain whether “the injury to each stockholder is of the same character.” Arent v. Distribution Sciences, Inc. 975 F.2d 1370, 1372 (8thCir.l992). 13 In other words, under the general rule, for a shareholder to maintain an individual action, the shareholder must establish a “special injury” which is separate and distinct from that of other shareholders.	1	1
Wiege v. Knockgreen sd · 1980 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995(Citations omitted.) See Wiege v. Knock, 293 N.W.2d 146, 148 (S.D.1980) (“easement” not recorded).	1	1
Sheffield Water Co. v. Elk Tanning Co.green pa · 1909 · cited in 1 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 2 sentences 1980In Sheffield Water Co. v. Elk Tanning Co., 225 Pa. 614, 622 , 74 A. 742, 745 (1909), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania construed a similar easement reservation in this language: “The reservation of an easement in land conveyed does not of itself import a use to the exclusion of the owner.” In Homes Development Co., Inc. v. Simmons, 75 S.D. 575 , 70 N.W.2d 527 (1955), after quoting statutes which have been in force since territorial days and now appear as SDCL 43-1-5, 43-4-18 and 43-25-30, 1 we adopted the generally recognized rule that where, during unity of title, an apparently permanent and 1980In Sheffield Water Co. v. Elk Tanning Co., 225 Pa. 614, 622 , 74 A. 742, 745 (1909), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania construed a similar easement reservation in this language: “The reservation of an easement in land conveyed does not of itself import a use to the exclusion of the owner.” In Homes Development Co., Inc. v. Simmons, 75 S.D. 575 , 70 N.W.2d 527 (1955), after quoting statutes which have been in force since territorial days and now appear as SDCL 43-1-5, 43-4-18 and 43-25-30, 1 we adopted the generally recognized rule that where, during unity of title, an apparently permanent and	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
People in Interest of JR green coloctapp · 1985 2 sentences 2006See State in Interest of J.J.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah.Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, . . . the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue." The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented 2006See State in Interest of J.T.T., 877 P.2d 161, 164 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (noting that through a strict application of "traditional res judicata analysis, uninfluenced by [exception] concerns, ... the prior neglect determination [was] no bar to the termination petition at issue.” The Utah court expressly saved for another day the difficult question of whether, and to what extent, res judicata actually applies in the context of termination of parental rights.); People in Interest of J.R., 711 P.2d 701 , 703 (Colo.Ct.App.1985) (involving the same proceeding in which additional facts were presented t	2	2006–2006
Osborn v. Currie neutral wis · 1938 2 sentences 2000In re Mead’s Estate, 221 Wis. 311, 277 N.W. 694 , 701 (1938), reh’g denied, 227 Wis. 311 , 279 N.W. 18 (1938); Goodsman v. Jannsen, 234 Iowa 925 , 14 N.W.2d 647, 648 (1944); see generally Annotation, What Constitutes or Establishes Beneficiary’s Acceptance or Renunciation of Devise or Bequest, 93 A.L.R.2d 8 , § 4 (1964) (citing cases). 2000In re Mead’s Estate, 221 Wis. 311, 277 N.W. 694 , 701 (1938), reh’g denied, 227 Wis. 311 , 279 N.W. 18 (1938); Goodsman v. Jannsen, 234 Iowa 925 , 14 N.W.2d 647, 648 (1944); see generally Annotation, What Constitutes or Establishes Beneficiary’s Acceptance or Renunciation of Devise or Bequest, 93 A.L.R.2d 8 , § 4 (1964) (citing cases).	1	2000–2000
Engstrand v. West Des Moines State Bank green iowa · 1994 1 sentence 1997Cowin v. Bresler, 741 F.2d 410, 415 (D.C.Cir.1984); Engstrand, 516 N.W.2d at 799 ; Meyerson, 448 N.W.2d at 133 .	1	1997–1997
Meyerson v. Coopers & Lybrand green neb · 1989 1 sentence 1997Cowin v. Bresler, 741 F.2d 410, 415 (D.C.Cir.1984); Engstrand, 516 N.W.2d at 799 ; Meyerson, 448 N.W.2d at 133 .	1	1997–1997
Campbell v. Holt green scotus · 1885 2 sentences 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Dau-gaard, the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)). 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Dau-gaard, the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)).	1	1996–1996
State v. Opperman green sd · 1976 2 sentences 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Dau-gaard, the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)). 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Daugaard , the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)).	1	1996–1996
Daugaard v. Baltic Cooperative Building Supply Ass'n green sd · 1984 2 sentences 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Dau-gaard, the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)). 1996Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620, 625-27 , 6 S.Ct. 209, 211-13 , 29 L.Ed. 483 (1885). [¶ 15.] However, as noted in Daugaard , the South Dakota Constitution is free to provide greater protections to its citizens than are granted under the federal constitution. 349 N.W.2d at 425 (citing State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673 (S.D.1976)).	1	1996–1996
Loughman v. Couchman green iowa · 1951 2 sentences 1980See also: Loughman v. Couchman, 242 Iowa 885 , 47 N.W.2d 152 (1951). 1980See also: Loughman v. Couchman, 242 Iowa 885 , 47 N.W.2d 152 (1951).	1	1980–1980
Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc. green illappct · 1978 2 sentences 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963). 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963).	1	1979–1979
Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc. green michctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963). 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963).	1	1979–1979
Sledge v. Bruce neutral illappct · 1977 2 sentences 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963). 1979Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top Parking, Inc., 62 Ill.App.3d 270 , 19 Ill.Dec. 573 , 379 N.E.2d 88 (1978); Sledge v. Bruce, 45 Ill.App.3d 210 , 4 Ill.Dec. 36 , 359 N.E.2d 869 (1977); Orton v. Markward & Karafilis, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 548 , 269 N.W.2d 219 (1978); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 20, pp. 925-926 (1963).	1	1979–1979

Where else courts name it

KY 27 (1922–2023) CA 25 (1916–2019) TX 23 (1915–2016) IL 23 (1881–2019) FL 20 (1947–2015) MO 18 (1894–2018) AL 18 (1882–1999) IA 17 (1895–2016) MI 16 (1893–2023) OR 15 (1910–2013) CO 12 (1905–2008) VA 12 (1986–2020) MD 12 (1973–2023) WV 11 (1916–1999) ID 10 (1920–2025) NY 10 (1890–2016) WA 10 (1917–1995) OK 10 (1924–2017) LA 9 (1925–2002) CT 8 (1932–2017) NC 8 (1908–1986) SD 8 (1979–2006) SC 8 (1912–2010) MN 8 (1885–1999) NJ 8 (1952–2019) OH 7 (1937–2004) GA 7 (1890–1996) PA 7 (1926–2021) MT 6 (1919–2022) WI 6 (1977–2000) KS 6 (1935–2010) RI 6 (1933–2001) MS 6 (1922–2012) AZ 5 (1939–1982) NV 5 (1865–1999) UT 4 (1927–2020) IN 4 (1893–2013) WY 4 (1941–2026) MA 4 (1909–2024) ND 4 (1925–2000) HI 3 (1932–1970) NM 3 (1903–1979) VT 3 (1858–1991) NE 3 (1981–2000) TN 3 (1937–1958)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check