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 1966–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Scottgreen2 sentences2019Outside of Zhang's own conclusory allegations, neither James, Skolnick, nor a consulting legal expert have found support for his claims that Brown committed malpractice. 4 See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Scott , 2003 S.D. 149 , ¶ 39, 673 N.W.2d 646 , 657 ("[S]ummary judgment is proper when the party opposing provides only conclusory statements and fails to present specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial."). 2019Outside of Zhang’s own conclusory allegations, neither James, Skolnick, nor a consulting legal expert have found support for his claims that Brown committed malpractice. 4 See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Scott, 2003 S.D. 149 , ¶ 39, 673 N.W.2d 646, 657 (“[S]ummary judgment is proper when the party opposing provides only conclusory statements and fails to present specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial.”). | 1 | 2 |
| 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. Willingham
green
1 sentence2025However, “[i]t is unnecessary to assess whether some evidence exists in the record to support the instruction unless the elements test is met.” Willingham, 2019 S.D. 55, ¶ 44 , 933 N.W.2d at 630 (citation omitted). [¶15.] The State asserts that the first two factors of the elements test are met. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ehresmann v. Muth
green
1 sentence2020To avoid summary judgment, “the essential elements” of fraud must be “adequately supported by alleged facts.” Ehresmann v. Muth, 2008 S.D. 103 , ¶ 22, 757 N.W.2d 402, 406 . [¶57.] Here, Aqreva produced nothing more for the circuit court’s review than conclusory allegations of fraud with no reference to evidence in the record to support its claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hoadley
green
1 sentence2019State v. Hoadley, 2002 S.D. 109 , ¶ 49, 651 N.W.2d 249, 260 . [¶45.] A person is guilty of commission of a felony with a firearm—the “greater offense” in this case—when he “commits or attempts to commit any felony while armed with a firearm, including a machine gun or short shotgun[.]” SDCL 22- 14-12. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Petersen v. Hinky Dinky
green
1 sentence2000Id. [¶ 27.] There is substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing examiner’s determination that Johnson was malingering. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson
green
2 sentences1966In Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson, 68 S.D. 538 , 5 N.W.2d 314 , an action in forcible entry and detainer, this court held that a party to an oral agreement may be prevented by estoppel from invoking the statute of frauds. 1966In Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson, 68 S.D. 538 , 5 N.W.2d 314 , an action in forcible entry and detainer, this court held that a party to an oral agreement may be prevented by estoppel from invoking the statute of frauds. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.