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 1927–2016 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. Catch the Beargreen2 sentences2015“Thus a lawyer-client privilege may be waived if the client voluntarily ... discloses the contents of the eommunication or advice to someone outside that relationship.” Catch the Bear, 352 N.W.2d at 647 . [¶ 20.] In conducting its in camera review, the circuit court noted that some of the documents Mary Ellen shared with Schrunk were privileged communications between Mary Ellen and her South Dakota and California attorneys. 2010SDCL 19-13-4; State v. Catch the Bear, 352 N.W.2d 640, 645 (S.D.1984). | 1 | 2 |
Andrews v. Ridco & Twin City Fire Ins. Co.green2 sentences2016See Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 24, ¶ 18 , 863 N.W.2d 540, 547 . 2016See Andrews v. Ridco, Inc., 2015 S.D. 24, ¶ 18 , 863 N.W.2d 540, 547 . | 1 | 1 |
State Highway Commission v. Earlgreen2 sentences2015See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981).(stating that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege "is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients"); State Highway Comm’n v. Earl, 82 S.D. 139, 147 , 143 N.W.2d 88, 92 (1966) ("The purpose behind our attorney-client privilege is to encourage a client to freely communicate with his attorney without fear of disclosure.’’). 2015See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981).(stating that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege "is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients"); State Highway Comm’n v. Earl, 82 S.D. 139, 147 , 143 N.W.2d 88, 92 (1966) ("The purpose behind our attorney-client privilege is to encourage a client to freely communicate with his attorney without fear of disclosure.’’). | 1 | 1 |
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981).(stating that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege "is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients"); State Highway Comm’n v. Earl, 82 S.D. 139, 147 , 143 N.W.2d 88, 92 (1966) ("The purpose behind our attorney-client privilege is to encourage a client to freely communicate with his attorney without fear of disclosure.’’). 2015See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 682 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981).(stating that the purpose of the attorney-client privilege "is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients"); State Highway Comm’n v. Earl, 82 S.D. 139, 147 , 143 N.W.2d 88, 92 (1966) ("The purpose behind our attorney-client privilege is to encourage a client to freely communicate with his attorney without fear of disclosure.’’). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dave Bump
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States v. Alfredo Flores, in the Matter of Robert L. Thorp, Witness-Appellant
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
cluster 384998
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
United States of America and Howard W. George, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Donald E. Cote
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Arnao v. United States
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Rice v. United States
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Davis v. United States
green
1 sentence1984SDCL 19-13-26 (Rule 510, Uniform Rules of Evidence); United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 862 , 102 S.Ct. 320 , 70 L.Ed.2d 162 (1981); United States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Bump, 605 F.2d 548 ; United States v. Cote, 456 F.2d 142 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Oehler v. Allstate Insurance
neutral
2 sentences1967Oehler v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2 Wis.2d 656 , 87 N.W.2d 289 . 1967Oehler v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2 Wis.2d 656 , 87 N.W.2d 289 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Kleinhesselink v. Porterfield
green
2 sentences1967Kleinhesselink v. Porterfield, 76 S.D. 577 , 83 N.W.2d 191 , service as a musician on a booster trip to advertise a city carnival, Forsling v. Mickelson, 66 S.D. 366 , 283 N.W. 169 , or the mere presence of a licensed operator thus allowing a holder of an instruction permit to lawfully drive the motor vehicle, Jennings v. Hodges, supra. The arrangement need not have all the characteristics of an enforcible contract. 1967Kleinhesselink v. Porterfield, 76 S.D. 577 , 83 N.W.2d 191 , service as a musician on a booster trip to advertise a city carnival, Forsling v. Mickelson, 66 S.D. 366 , 283 N.W. 169 , or the mere presence of a licensed operator thus allowing a holder of an instruction permit to lawfully drive the motor vehicle, Jennings v. Hodges, supra. The arrangement need not have all the characteristics of an enforcible contract. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Forsling v. Mickelson
green
2 sentences1967Kleinhesselink v. Porterfield, 76 S.D. 577 , 83 N.W.2d 191 , service as a musician on a booster trip to advertise a city carnival, Forsling v. Mickelson, 66 S.D. 366 , 283 N.W. 169 , or the mere presence of a licensed operator thus allowing a holder of an instruction permit to lawfully drive the motor vehicle, Jennings v. Hodges, supra. The arrangement need not have all the characteristics of an enforcible contract. 1967Kleinhesselink v. Porterfield, 76 S.D. 577 , 83 N.W.2d 191 , service as a musician on a booster trip to advertise a city carnival, Forsling v. Mickelson, 66 S.D. 366 , 283 N.W. 169 , or the mere presence of a licensed operator thus allowing a holder of an instruction permit to lawfully drive the motor vehicle, Jennings v. Hodges, supra. The arrangement need not have all the characteristics of an enforcible contract. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Oschenreiter v. Block
neutral
1 sentence1927In the -case of Oschenreiter v. Block, 42 S. D. 154, 173 N. W. 736 , this -court held that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the holder where the defense was that the note was procured by fraud and that the plaintiff was not a hol-der in due course. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.