infallible test (South Dakota) · Go Syfert
← South Dakota issues

infallible test in South Dakota

7 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1939–1999 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
McLean v. Merrimangreen
sd · 1920 · cited in 6 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1993–1999
2 sentences

1999Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’ ” Id. (quoting *398 McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

1999Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’ ” Id. (quoting *398 McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

66
Uken v. Sloatgreen
sd · 1980 · cited in 4 South Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1996–1999
2 sentences

1999Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’ ” Id. (quoting *398 McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

1999Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’ ” Id. (quoting *398 McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

44

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Peterson v. City of Mitchell green
sd · 1993
2 sentences

1999Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’ ” Id. (quoting *398 McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

1997Peterson, 499 N.W.2d at 915 -16 (citing Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540, 542-43 (S.D.1980)). “ ‘An infallible test in determining whether a communication ... is or is not privileged is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it.’” Id. (quoting McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399 , 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)).

51996–1999
Kieser v. Southeast Properties green
sd · 1997
2 sentences

1999Kieser v. Southeast Properties, 1997 SD 87, 14 , 566 N.W.2d 833, 837 .

1999Kieser v. Southeast Properties, 1997 SD 87, 14 , 566 N.W.2d 833, 837 .

11999–1999
Kiefer v. Dickson neutral
indctapp · 1908
2 sentences

1939As said in the case of Kiefer v. Dickson, 41 Ind. App. 543 , 84 N. E. 523 , 525: “While the presence or absence of windows is not an infallible test of a party wall, their presence is a good indication that it is not a party wall.

1939As said in the case of Kiefer v. Dickson, 41 Ind. App. 543 , 84 N. E. 523 , 525: “While the presence or absence of windows is not an infallible test of a party wall, their presence is a good indication that it is not a party wall.

11939–1939

Statutes the citing opinions construe

SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 20-11-3 (6) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 20-11-5 (6) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 20-11-2 (5) SD § S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-56 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IA 11 (1889–1979) PA 10 (1965–2024) SD 7 (1939–1999) CO 6 (1935–1989) GA 6 (1899–1960) OK 6 (1915–1983) TN 5 (1970–1981) MO 4 (1890–1971) MI 4 (1958–1979) CA 4 (1908–1947) NC 3 (1918–2020) KS 2 (1913–1975) MS 2 (1898–1930) TX 2 (1942–1950)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check