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 1982–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nickles v. Nicklesgreen2 sentences2018Streier, 2016 S.D. 71 , ¶ 25, 886 N.W.2d at 581 (quoting Nickles v. Nickles, 2015 S.D. 40 , ¶ 34, 865 N.W.2d 142, 154 ). [¶33.] In its analysis of the reasonableness of the award, the court emphasized that James increased the time, labor, and skill necessary to prepare for the custody hearing, that he “complicated the nature of the legal problems,” and that he “unreasonably increased the time spent” on the case. 2018Streier , 2016 S.D. 71 , ¶ 25, 886 N.W.2d at 581 (quoting Nickles v. Nickles , 2015 S.D. 40 , ¶ 34, 865 N.W.2d 142 , 154 ). [¶ 33.] In its analysis of the reasonableness of the award, the court emphasized that James increased the time, labor, and skill necessary to prepare for the custody hearing, that he "complicated the nature of the legal problems," and that he "unreasonably increased the time spent" on the case. | 2 | 2 |
Wells v. Wellsgreen2 sentences2001Furthermore, at the time of the initial custody hearing on which Keckler relies, the tribal court found that Keckler was âa resident of Spearfish, South Dakota which is outside the jurisdiction of [the tribal] court.â When tribal members reside outside the reservation, they are generally subject to ânondiscriminatory state law.â Wells v. Wells, 451 NW2d 402, 405 (SD 1990). 2001Furthermore, at the time of the initial custody hearing on which Keckler relies, the tribal court found that Keckler was “a resident of Spearfish, South Dakota which is outside the jurisdiction of [the tribal] court.” When tribal members reside outside the reservation, they are generally subject to “nondiscriminatory state law.” Wells v. Wells, 451 N.W.2d 402, 405 (S.D. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Schieffer v. Schieffergreen2 sentences2022See Schieffer v. Schieffer, 2013 S.D. 11, ¶ 18 , 826 N.W.2d 627, 634 (describing the need for a systematic and balanced approach to a court’s custody analysis). 2022See Schieffer v. Schieffer, 2013 S.D. 11, ¶ 18 , 826 N.W.2d 627, 634 (describing the need for a systematic and balanced approach to a court’s custody analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Stansbury v. Californiagreen2 sentences2008See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323 , 114 S.Ct. at 1529 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (reiterating that an interrogating officer’s subjective view is irrelevant to the custody analysis). [¶ 30.] The officers were in the process of determining what was going on in the premises, who was involved in it, and whether anyone was in need of emergency assistance. 2008See Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323 , 114 S.Ct. at 1529 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (reiterating that an interrogating officer’s subjective view is irrelevant to the custody analysis). [¶ 30.] The officers were in the process of determining what was going on in the premises, who was involved in it, and whether anyone was in need of emergency assistance. | 1 | 1 |
Brim v. Struthersgreen2 sentences1982See Brim v. Struthers, 44 Wash.2d 833 , 271 P.2d 441 (1954). 1982See Brim v. Struthers, 44 Wash.2d 833 , 271 P.2d 441 (1954). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Streier v. Pike
neutral
2 sentences2018Streier, 2016 S.D. 71 , ¶ 25, 886 N.W.2d at 581 (quoting Nickles v. Nickles, 2015 S.D. 40 , ¶ 34, 865 N.W.2d 142, 154 ). [¶33.] In its analysis of the reasonableness of the award, the court emphasized that James increased the time, labor, and skill necessary to prepare for the custody hearing, that he “complicated the nature of the legal problems,” and that he “unreasonably increased the time spent” on the case. 2018Streier , 2016 S.D. 71 , ¶ 25, 886 N.W.2d at 581 (quoting Nickles v. Nickles , 2015 S.D. 40 , ¶ 34, 865 N.W.2d 142 , 154 ). [¶ 33.] In its analysis of the reasonableness of the award, the court emphasized that James increased the time, labor, and skill necessary to prepare for the custody hearing, that he "complicated the nature of the legal problems," and that he "unreasonably increased the time spent" on the case. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
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.