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 1978–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Farmer v. South Dakota Department of Revenue & Regulationgreen1 sentence2026Rather, we review whether the claims asserted in both suits arose out of a single dispute and whether one claim has been brought to a final judgment on the merits. 781 N.W.2d 655, 660 (S.D. 2010) (citation omitted). [¶62.] We, therefore, conclude that the first element of our claim preclusion test is satisfied because the issue raised by Bret in his motion to dismiss the petition for dissolution—the ownership of HRI—was the same issue adjudicated in several previous cases. | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Hawkeye Security Insurance Co.green1 sentence2022See Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc., 831 F.3d 1009, 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding a party was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion from pursuing breach of contract and conversion claims in a second suit after an unsuccessful initial attempt to quiet title to the property because the two suits arose out of the same cause of action). [¶51.] We also conclude that our decision in Healy v. Osborne represented a final judgment on the merits, which we have defined as “one . . . based on legal rights rather than matters of procedure and jurisdiction.” Nelson, 369 N.W.2d at 381 ; cf. | 1 | 1 |
John Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc.green1 sentence2022See Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc., 831 F.3d 1009, 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding a party was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion from pursuing breach of contract and conversion claims in a second suit after an unsuccessful initial attempt to quiet title to the property because the two suits arose out of the same cause of action). [¶51.] We also conclude that our decision in Healy v. Osborne represented a final judgment on the merits, which we have defined as “one . . . based on legal rights rather than matters of procedure and jurisdiction.” Nelson, 369 N.W.2d at 381 ; cf. | 1 | 1 |
Springer v. Blackgreen1 sentence2022See Finstad v. Beresford Bancorporation, Inc., 831 F.3d 1009, 1014 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding a party was barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion from pursuing breach of contract and conversion claims in a second suit after an unsuccessful initial attempt to quiet title to the property because the two suits arose out of the same cause of action). [¶51.] We also conclude that our decision in Healy v. Osborne represented a final judgment on the merits, which we have defined as “one . . . based on legal rights rather than matters of procedure and jurisdiction.” Nelson, 369 N.W.2d at 381 ; cf. | 1 | 1 |
McCue v. Deppertgreen2 sentences1997See also Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D’Ambro, 408 Pa.Super. 301 , 596 A.2d 867, 871 (1991); McCue v. Deppert, 21 N.J.Super. 591 , 91 A.2d 503, 506 (1952). 19 [¶ 79.] Therefore, we hold that Landstrom failed to establish the first element of her claim of tortious interference. 1997See also Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D’Ambro, 408 Pa.Super. 301 , 596 A.2d 867, 871 (1991); McCue v. Deppert, 21 N.J.Super. 591 , 91 A.2d 503, 506 (1952). 19 [¶ 79.] Therefore, we hold that Landstrom failed to establish the first element of her claim of tortious interference. | 1 | 1 |
Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D'AMBROgreen2 sentences1997See also Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D’Ambro, 408 Pa.Super. 301 , 596 A.2d 867, 871 (1991); McCue v. Deppert, 21 N.J.Super. 591 , 91 A.2d 503, 506 (1952). 19 [¶ 79.] Therefore, we hold that Landstrom failed to establish the first element of her claim of tortious interference. 1997See also Kelly-Springfield Tire Co. v. D’Ambro, 408 Pa.Super. 301 , 596 A.2d 867, 871 (1991); McCue v. Deppert, 21 N.J.Super. 591 , 91 A.2d 503, 506 (1952). 19 [¶ 79.] Therefore, we hold that Landstrom failed to establish the first element of her claim of tortious interference. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rapid City Journal v. Delaney
green
2 sentences2017One is the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception, which applies when: “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining -6- #27956, #27957 party will be subject to the same action again.” 3 Rapid City Journal v. Delaney, 2011 S.D. 55 , ¶ 8, 804 N.W.2d 388, 391 . [¶15.] Looking to the first element of this exception, it is true that the time to resolve Appellants’ cases was limited before the election. 2017One is the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception, which applies when: “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” 3 Rapid City Journal v. Delaney, 2011 S.D. 55 , ¶ 8, 804 N.W.2d 388, 391 . [1Í15.] Looking to the first element of this exception, it is true that the time to resolve Appellants’ cases was limited before the election. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Blaha v. Stuard
green
1 sentence2018Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress [¶51.] In Blaha v. Stuard, we recognized that the first element in a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress is that the defendant engaged in negligent conduct. 2002 S.D. 19 , ¶ 19, 640 N.W.2d 85, 90 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Rowland's Estate
green
2 sentences1978As we stated in the case of In re Rowlands’ Estate, 70 S.D. 419, 426 , 18 N.W.2d 290 , 293: “The essential elements of undue influence, invalidating a will, are (1) a person susceptible to such influence, (2) opportunity to exert such influence and effect the wrongful purpose, (3) a disposition to do so for an improper purpose, and (4) a result clearly showing the effect of such influence.” Because contestants’ case so clearly founders on the first element of the test set forth in the Rowlands’ case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss in detail events that occurred both prior and subsequent to 1978As we stated in the case of In re Rowlands’ Estate, 70 S.D. 419, 426 , 18 N.W.2d 290 , 293: “The essential elements of undue influence, invalidating a will, are (1) a person susceptible to such influence, (2) opportunity to exert such influence and effect the wrongful purpose, (3) a disposition to do so for an improper purpose, and (4) a result clearly showing the effect of such influence.” Because contestants’ case so clearly founders on the first element of the test set forth in the Rowlands’ case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss in detail events that occurred both prior and subsequent to | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.