8 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2016 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. McCaffertygreen2 sentences1987When asked if he paid $240.00 to Trembath for the sale of ties to Montgomery, defendant replied, “$6.00 a tie times for, [sic] yea, two forty.” We have stated that “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” under the residual exception to the hearsay rule is synonymous with “indicia of reliability” required under the confrontation clause test in Ohio v. Roberts, supra. State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159 (S.D.1984). 1986This Court, in State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159, 164 (S.D.1984), made it clear that the notice requirement was a critical provision of the residual exception rule. | 3 | 4 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1993Id. 497 U.S. at 817-818 , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653-654 . 1993Id. 497 U.S. at 817-818 , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653-654 . | 1 | 2 |
Helen L. Huff, Administratrix of the Estate of Jessee Huff, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. White Motor Corporation, Cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2000This list of factors is generally only necessary to an analysis of whether the proffered hearsay possesses "the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness of the hearsay offered under the residual exception are ‘equivalent’ to the guarantees that justify the specific exceptions.” Doe, 976 F.2d at 1075 (citing Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 293 (7th Cir.1979)). 2000If a child has the capacity to remember at trial, and to relate at trial, he probably had those same capacities at the time of the earlier hearsay statement." Id. n.150. [16] This list of factors is generally only necessary to an analysis of whether the proffered hearsay possesses "the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness of the hearsay offered under the residual exception are `equivalent' to the guarantees that justify the specific exceptions." Doe, 976 F.2d at 1075 (citing Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 293 (7th Cir.1979)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People in Interest of MW
green
2 sentences1986SDCL 19-16-35; People In Interest of M.W., supra ; State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159 (S.D.1984). 1986SDCL 19-16-35; People In Interest of M.W., supra; State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159 (S.D.1984). | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Kahoutek v. Kahoutek
green
1 sentence2016But from the language of the Will and Codicil together, it appears Edward F. intended to specifically devise all his real property and that no real property would pass to his heirs via the residual clause. -14- #27451 Neither the Will nor Codicil account for the NE 1/4 of S7-T19N-R24, which makes ambiguous the provision devising Eddy land Edward F. does not own. [¶31.] Gail, however, insists extrinsic evidence cannot be considered to “ascribe to a testator an intention that his will does not express.” She directs this Court to In re Kahoutek’s Estate, for the proposition that a testator’s devi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
John Doe, Cross-Appellants v. United States of America, Cross-Appellee
green
2 sentences2000This list of factors is generally only necessary to an analysis of whether the proffered hearsay possesses "the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness of the hearsay offered under the residual exception are ‘equivalent’ to the guarantees that justify the specific exceptions.” Doe, 976 F.2d at 1075 (citing Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 293 (7th Cir.1979)). 2000If a child has the capacity to remember at trial, and to relate at trial, he probably had those same capacities at the time of the earlier hearsay statement." Id. n.150. [16] This list of factors is generally only necessary to an analysis of whether the proffered hearsay possesses "the circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness of the hearsay offered under the residual exception are `equivalent' to the guarantees that justify the specific exceptions." Doe, 976 F.2d at 1075 (citing Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 293 (7th Cir.1979)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences1993Id. 497 U.S. at 817-818 , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653-654 . 1993Id. 497 U.S. at 817-818 , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653-654 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Matter of NJW
green
1 sentence1985N.J.W., supra. Initially, a statement admitted under the residual exception rule, SDCL 19-16-35, may be admitted only if the declar-ant is unavailable as a witness. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.