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.
7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knudson v. Hessgreen2 sentences2004Christenson has the burden to show the instruction given was in error, and that the error was prejudicial under SDCL 15-6-61. 3 See Knudson, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d at 75 ; Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d at 359 ; Chambers, 488 N.W.2d at 64 . 2004Christenson has the burden to show the instruction given was in error, and that the error was prejudicial under SDCL 15-6-61. 3 See Knudson, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d at 75 ; Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d at 359 ; Chambers, 488 N.W.2d at 64 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Michalekgreen1 sentence2004In order to prevail, error must be shown “which in all probability produced some effect upon the jury’s verdict and is harmful to the rights of the party assigning it.” *429 Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications Inc., 517 N.W.2d 419, 426 (S.D.1994) (citing State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987)). [¶ 30.] We believe Christenson has failed to show the trial court’s denial of her motion to remove the contributory negligence instruction prejudiced her in any manner. | 1 | 1 |
Chambers v. Dakotah Charter, Inc.green2 sentences2004Knudson v. Hess, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d 73, 75 (citing Sybesma v. Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d 355, 359 (S.D.1995) (quoting Chambers v. Dakotah Charter, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 63, 64 (S.D.1992))). 2004Christenson has the burden to show the instruction given was in error, and that the error was prejudicial under SDCL 15-6-61. 3 See Knudson, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d at 75 ; Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d at 359 ; Chambers, 488 N.W.2d at 64 . | 1 | 1 |
Sybesma v. Sybesmagreen2 sentences2004Knudson v. Hess, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d 73, 75 (citing Sybesma v. Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d 355, 359 (S.D.1995) (quoting Chambers v. Dakotah Charter, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 63, 64 (S.D.1992))). 2004Christenson has the burden to show the instruction given was in error, and that the error was prejudicial under SDCL 15-6-61. 3 See Knudson, 1996 SD 137, ¶ 6 , 556 N.W.2d at 75 ; Sybesma, 534 N.W.2d at 359 ; Chambers, 488 N.W.2d at 64 . | 1 | 1 |
Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc.green1 sentence2004In order to prevail, error must be shown “which in all probability produced some effect upon the jury’s verdict and is harmful to the rights of the party assigning it.” *429 Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications Inc., 517 N.W.2d 419, 426 (S.D.1994) (citing State v. Michalek, 407 N.W.2d 815, 818 (S.D.1987)). [¶ 30.] We believe Christenson has failed to show the trial court’s denial of her motion to remove the contributory negligence instruction prejudiced her in any manner. | 1 | 1 |
Mash v. Cutlergreen2 sentences2001The burden to show error is on the appellant.” Mash v. Cutler, 488 N.W.2d 642, 646 (S.D.1992) (citations omitted). 2001“The credibility of witnesses, the weight to be accorded their testimony, and the weight of the evidence must be determined by the trial court and we accord the trial court some deference based on its observations of the witnesses and the evidence.” Id. (citing Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 9 (S.D.1984)) (citations omitted). “[D]eter-mining the credibility of the witnesses is the role of the factfinder. | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Grossgreen1 sentence2001“The credibility of witnesses, the weight to be accorded their testimony, and the weight of the evidence must be determined by the trial court and we accord the trial court some deference based on its observations of the witnesses and the evidence.” Id. (citing Gross v. Gross, 355 N.W.2d 4, 9 (S.D.1984)) (citations omitted). “[D]eter-mining the credibility of the witnesses is the role of the factfinder. | 1 | 1 |
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Straingreen1 sentence1992Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964).’ Penner, 462 N.W.2d at 482 (quoting Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Strain, 432 N.W.2d 259, 265 (S.D.1988)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hilde v. Flood
green
2 sentences1992Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964).’ Penner, 462 N.W.2d at 482 (quoting Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Strain, 432 N.W.2d 259, 265 (S.D.1988)). 1992Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964).’ Penner, 462 N.W.2d at 482 (quoting Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Strain, 432 N.W.2d 259, 265 (S.D.1988)). | 4 | 1988–1992 |
Temple v. Temple
green
2 sentences1992Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964). 1990Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964). | 3 | 1988–1992 |
Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. v. Clifford Ex Rel. Clifford
green
1 sentence2010Id. [¶ 19.] When determining whether coverage extends to a duty to defend in an underlying action, we begin with an examination of the language of the policy and the pleadings in the underlying action. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Chamberlain Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Penner
green
1 sentence1992Temple, supra; Hilde v. Flood, 81 S.D. 25 , 130 N.W.2d 100 (1964).’ Penner, 462 N.W.2d at 482 (quoting Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Strain, 432 N.W.2d 259, 265 (S.D.1988)). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.