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 2004–2024 3 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. McCrarygreen2 sentences2024Therefore, requiring an objection at the time the error occurs aligns with the purpose of our rule that parties must raise issues first to the circuit court to give “the circuit court . . . an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. McCrary, 2004 S.D. 18 , ¶ 15, 676 N.W.2d 116, 121 . [¶23.] Second, objecting at the time the circuit court fails to identify on the record the aggravating circumstances warranting a deviation from presumptive probation as required under SDCL 22-6-11 promotes judicial efficiency. 2009See United States v. Flenoid, 415 F.3d 974, 976 (8th Cir.2005). “ ‘Generally, parties must object to specific court action and state the reason underlying their objection so that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.’ ” State v. Divan, 2006 SD 105, ¶ 9 , 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 (quoting State v. McCrary, 2004 SD 18, ¶ 15 , 676 N.W.2d 116, 121 ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Divangreen2 sentences2023This ensures “that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Guzman, 2022 S.D. 70, ¶ 26 , 982 N.W.2d 875, 886 (quoting State v. Divan, 2006 S.D. 105 , ¶ 9, 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 ). [¶30.] The circuit court entered an order requiring the State to notify the defense of any expert testimony it intended to present. 2022Guzman disagrees, claiming that he preserved his constitutional arguments by resisting the State’s request that the circuit court exclude Helen from testifying and by arguing that Helen should be permitted to testify as a witness to matters relevant to his defense. [¶26.] “Generally, parties must object to specific court action and state the reason underlying their objection so that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Divan, 2006 S.D. 105 , ¶ 9, 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Guzmangreen2 sentences2023This ensures “that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Guzman, 2022 S.D. 70, ¶ 26 , 982 N.W.2d 875, 886 (quoting State v. Divan, 2006 S.D. 105 , ¶ 9, 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 ). [¶30.] The circuit court entered an order requiring the State to notify the defense of any expert testimony it intended to present. 2023This ensures “that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Guzman, 2022 S.D. 70, ¶ 26 , 982 N.W.2d 875, 886 (quoting State v. Divan, 2006 S.D. 105 , ¶ 9, 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 ). [¶30.] The circuit court entered an order requiring the State to notify the defense of any expert testimony it intended to present. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Larry Flenoidgreen1 sentence2009See United States v. Flenoid, 415 F.3d 974, 976 (8th Cir.2005). “ ‘Generally, parties must object to specific court action and state the reason underlying their objection so that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.’ ” State v. Divan, 2006 SD 105, ¶ 9 , 724 N.W.2d 865, 869 (quoting State v. McCrary, 2004 SD 18, ¶ 15 , 676 N.W.2d 116, 121 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2012“Generally, parties must object to specific court action and state the reason underlying their objection so that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Johnson, 2009 S.D. 67, ¶ 16 , 771 N.W.2d 360, 367 . 2012“Generally, parties must object to specific court action and state the reason underlying their objection so that the circuit court has an opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Johnson, 2009 S.D. 67, ¶ 16 , 771 N.W.2d 360, 367 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Henjum
green
2 sentences2004State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 7 , 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 ; State v. Henjum, 1996 SD 7, ¶ 13 , 542 N.W.2d 760, 763 . 2004State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 7 , 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 ; State v. Henjum, 1996 SD 7, ¶ 13 , 542 N.W.2d 760, 763 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Dufault
green
2 sentences2004State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 7 , 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 ; State v. Henjum, 1996 SD 7, ¶ 13 , 542 N.W.2d 760, 763 . 2004State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 7 , 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 ; State v. Henjum, 1996 SD 7, ¶ 13 , 542 N.W.2d 760, 763 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.