reasonable certainty standard in South Dakota

2006Id. (quoting Kressly v. Theberge, 79 S.D. 386 , 112 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1961)). [¶ 32.] The trial court directly addressed the question of speculative damages in Jury Instructions No. 4 and No. 5: 4.

2002For this reason, the only deductions shown by Table Steaks on Exhibits 49 and 50 were those additional costs that it would have incurred in earning the income it claimed to have lost, including the cost of goods and bank service charges. [¶ 38.] In Drier v. Perfection, Inc., 259 N.W.2d 496 (S.D.1977) this Court held that lost profits may be recovered under the reasonable certainty test, and admissibility of evidence rests largely in the discretion and practical judgment of the trial court.

2018In explaining the reasonable certainty requirement for damages, we have stated that "[u]ncertainty as to the fact [of damages] is fatal to recovery, *184 but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery." Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc. , 261 N.W.2d 114 , 118 (S.D. 1977). 3 "Once the fact of damages has been established, uncertainty over the amount of damages is not fatal to recovery." Bailey v. Duling , 2013 S.D. 15 , ¶ 35, 827 N.W.2d 351 , 363. (emphasis added). [¶19.] Damages for alienation of affections encompass loss of consortium and damages "for any physica

2018In explaining the reasonable certainty requirement for damages, we have stated that "[u]ncertainty as to the fact [of damages] is fatal to recovery, *184 but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery." Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc. , 261 N.W.2d 114 , 118 (S.D. 1977). 3 "Once the fact of damages has been established, uncertainty over the amount of damages is not fatal to recovery." Bailey v. Duling , 2013 S.D. 15 , ¶ 35, 827 N.W.2d 351 , 363. (emphasis added). [¶19.] Damages for alienation of affections encompass loss of consortium and damages "for any physica

2018In explaining the reasonable certainty requirement for damages, we have stated that "[u]ncertainty as to the fact [of damages] is fatal to recovery, *184 but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery." Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc. , 261 N.W.2d 114 , 118 (S.D. 1977). 3 "Once the fact of damages has been established, uncertainty over the amount of damages is not fatal to recovery." Bailey v. Duling , 2013 S.D. 15 , ¶ 35, 827 N.W.2d 351 , 363. (emphasis added). [¶19.] Damages for alienation of affections encompass loss of consortium and damages "for any physica

2018In explaining the reasonable certainty requirement for damages, we have stated that “[u]ncertainty as to the fact [of damages] is fatal to recovery, but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery.” Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 114, 118 (S.D. 1977).3 “Once the fact of ________________________ (. . . continued) 2017 S.D. 92 , ¶ 29 n.9, 906 N.W.2d 369 , 379; Rumpca, 2012 S.D. 33, ¶ 7 , 814 N.W.2d 128, 129-30 ; State Farm Fire & Cas.

2018In explaining the reasonable certainty requirement for damages, we have stated that “[u]ncertainty as to the fact [of damages] is fatal to recovery, but uncertainty as to the measure or extent of the damages does not bar recovery.” Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc., 261 N.W.2d 114, 118 (S.D. 1977).3 “Once the fact of ________________________ (. . . continued) 2017 S.D. 92 , ¶ 29 n.9, 906 N.W.2d 369 , 379; Rumpca, 2012 S.D. 33, ¶ 7 , 814 N.W.2d 128, 129-30 ; State Farm Fire & Cas.

2018Co. v. Harbert, 2007 S.D. 107 , ¶ 24, 741 N.W.2d 228, 236 . 3.

2010“The reasonable certainty standard requires there to be proof of a rational basis for measuring loss, without allowing a [fact finder] to speculate.” Lord, 2006 SD 70, ¶ 31 , 720 N.W.2d at 454 (citing McKie v. Huntley, 2000 SD 160, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 599, 603 (quoting Kressly v. Theberge, 79 S.D. 386 , 112 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1961))). [¶ 41.] The trial court found that Wagner breached his fiduciary duty to Weekley by fading to timely inventory, collect and sell the construction equipment for the estate after ownership of the equipment was resolved in 2002 by In re Estate of Brownlee, 2002 SD 142 ,

2010“The reasonable certainty standard requires there to be proof of a rational basis for measuring loss, without allowing a [fact finder] to speculate.” Lord, 2006 SD 70, ¶ 31 , 720 N.W.2d at 454 (citing McKie v. Huntley, 2000 SD 160, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 599, 603 (quoting Kressly v. Theberge, 79 S.D. 386 , 112 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1961))). [¶ 41.] The trial court found that Wagner breached his fiduciary duty to Weekley by fading to timely inventory, collect and sell the construction equipment for the estate after ownership of the equipment was resolved in 2002 by In re Estate of Brownlee, 2002 SD 142 ,

2010“The reasonable certainty standard requires there to be proof of a rational basis for measuring loss, without allowing a [fact finder] to speculate.” Lord, 2006 SD 70, ¶ 31 , 720 N.W.2d at 454 (citing McKie v. Huntley, 2000 SD 160, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 599, 603 (quoting Kressly v. Theberge, 79 S.D. 386 , 112 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1961))). [¶ 41.] The trial court found that Wagner breached his fiduciary duty to Weekley by fading to timely inventory, collect and sell the construction equipment for the estate after ownership of the equipment was resolved in 2002 by In re Estate of Brownlee, 2002 SD 142 ,

2010“The reasonable certainty standard requires there to be proof of a rational basis for measuring loss, without allowing a [fact finder] to speculate.” Lord, 2006 SD 70, ¶ 31 , 720 N.W.2d at 454 (citing McKie v. Huntley, 2000 SD 160, ¶ 18 , 620 N.W.2d 599, 603 (quoting Kressly v. Theberge, 79 S.D. 386 , 112 N.W.2d 232, 233 (1961))). [¶ 41.] The trial court found that Wagner breached his fiduciary duty to Weekley by fading to timely inventory, collect and sell the construction equipment for the estate after ownership of the equipment was resolved in 2002 by In re Estate of Brownlee, 2002 SD 142 ,

1989Swallow, 350 N.W.2d at 608 . "`An information is sufficient if it [apprises] the accused of the nature of the accusation against him with reasonable certainty so that he may prepare a defense and be protected from double jeopardy.'" State v. Loop, 422 N.W.2d 420, 422 (S.D. 1988) (brackets in original; citation omitted).

1989Swallow, 350 N.W.2d at 608 . “ ‘An information is sufficient if it [apprises] the accused of the nature of the accusation against him with reasonable certainty so that he may prepare a defense and be protected from double jeopardy.’ ” State v. Loop, 422 N.W.2d 420, 422 (S.D.1988) (brackets in original; citation omitted).