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 1994–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leisinger v. Jacobsongreen2 sentences2007In Leis-inger, we followed the principle that a “[failure to give a requested jury instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error.” Id. ¶ 8, 651 N.W.2d at 696 . 2004See e.g., Leisinger v. Jacobson, 2002 SD 108, ¶ 8 , 651 N.W.2d 693, 696 ; Boomsma v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern R.R. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2007However, in Martin , we overruled Leisinger. 2004 SD 82, ¶¶ 37, n. 5, 42 , 683 N.W.2d at 411-13 . [¶ 65.] Furthermore, as the trial court implied, Instruction No. 27 is unnecessarily repetitious. 2007However, in Martin , we overruled Leisinger. 2004 SD 82, ¶¶ 37, n. 5, 42 , 683 N.W.2d at 411-13 . [¶ 65.] Furthermore, as the trial court implied, Instruction No. 27 is unnecessarily repetitious. | 1 | 1 |
Delzer Construction Co. v. South Dakota State Board of Transportationgreen2 sentences2000See Buxcel v. First Fidelity Bank, 1999 SD 126, ¶ 13 , 601 N.W.2d 593, 596 (stating "[f]ailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error." (citations omitted)); Delzer Construction Co. v. SD State Bd. of Transportation, 275 N.W.2d 352, 355 (SD 1979) (providing that "when there is an ambiguous contract, evidence must be introduced to determine ... the intentions of the parties... and ... such evidence creates a question of fact, which must be resolved by the jury."). 2000See Buxcel v. First Fidelity Bank, 1999 SD 126, ¶ 13 , 601 N.W.2d 593, 596 (stating “[fjailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error.” (citations omitted)); Delzer Construction Co. v. SD State Bd. of Transportation, 275 N.W.2d 352, 355 (SD 1979) (providing that “when there is an ambiguous contract, evidence must be introduced to determine ... the intentions of the parties ... and ... such evidence creates a question of fact, which must be resolved by the jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Clements v. Gabrielgreen2 sentences2000See also Clements v. Gabriel, 472 N.W.2d 480, 482-83 (S.D.1991) (holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to construe an ambiguous contract against the draftsman); Delzer, 275 N.W.2d at 356-57 (providing that the instruction given, implicitly construing an ambiguous contract against the draftsman, was accurate). [¶ 27.] KONENKAMP, Justice, joins this concurrence in result. *821 MILLER, Chief Justice (concurring in result). [¶ 28.] Although I agree with Justice Sabers' special writing, I cannot join the last paragraph. 2000See also Clements v. Gabriel, 472 N.W.2d 480, 482-83 (S.D.1991) (holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury to construe an ambiguous contract against the draftsman); Delzer, 275 N.W.2d at 356-57 (providing that the instruction given, implicitly construing an ambiguous contract against the draftsman, was accurate). [¶ 27.] KONENKAMP, Justice, joins this concurrence in result. | 1 | 1 |
Buxcel v. First Fidelity Bankgreen2 sentences2000See Buxcel v. First Fidelity Bank, 1999 SD 126, ¶ 13 , 601 N.W.2d 593, 596 (stating “[fjailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error.” (citations omitted)); Delzer Construction Co. v. SD State Bd. of Transportation, 275 N.W.2d 352, 355 (SD 1979) (providing that “when there is an ambiguous contract, evidence must be introduced to determine ... the intentions of the parties ... and ... such evidence creates a question of fact, which must be resolved by the jury.”). 2000See Buxcel v. First Fidelity Bank, 1999 SD 126, ¶ 13 , 601 N.W.2d 593, 596 (stating “[fjailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error.” (citations omitted)); Delzer Construction Co. v. SD State Bd. of Transportation, 275 N.W.2d 352, 355 (SD 1979) (providing that “when there is an ambiguous contract, evidence must be introduced to determine ... the intentions of the parties ... and ... such evidence creates a question of fact, which must be resolved by the jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Schelske v. South Dakota Poultry Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences1994Schelske v. South Dakota Poultry Co-op, 465 N.W.2d 187, 190 (S.D.1991). 1994Schelske v. South Dakota Poultry Co-op, 465 N.W.2d 187, 190 (S.D.1991). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bauman v. Auch
green
2 sentences1996Id. "[F]ailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error. 1996Id. “[F]ailure to give a requested instruction that correctly sets forth the law is prejudicial error. | 3 | 1996–1998 |
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.