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.
6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1924–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
People in Interests of MCgreen2 sentences2003See In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d at 601 . 2003See In re M.C., 504 N.W.2d at 601 . | 2 | 2 |
Lodermeier v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See SDCL 23A-7-2 (Rule 11(a)); SDCL 23A-7-4 (Rule 11(c)); SDCL 23A-7-14 (Rule 11(f)); Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1978) (holding that there is no requirement for a circuit court to advise a defendant of any defense of which he had prior knowledge); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 573 , 109 S.Ct. 757, 764 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (stating that “no conscious waiver is necessary with respect to each potential defense relinquished by a plea of guilty”); United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117, 123 (2nd Cir.1998) (declaring that “the court has no duty under Rule 11(f) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Brocegreen2 sentences2014See SDCL 23A-7-2 (Rule 11(a)); SDCL 23A-7-4 (Rule 11(c)); SDCL 23A-7-14 (Rule 11(f)); Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1978) (holding that there is no requirement for a circuit court to advise a defendant of any defense of which he had prior knowledge); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 573 , 109 S.Ct. 757, 764 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (stating that “no conscious waiver is necessary with respect to each potential defense relinquished by a plea of guilty”); United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117, 123 (2nd Cir.1998) (declaring that “the court has no duty under Rule 11(f) 2014See SDCL 23A-7-2 (Rule 11(a)); SDCL 23A-7-4 (Rule 11(c)); SDCL 23A-7-14 (Rule 11(f)); Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1978) (holding that there is no requirement for a circuit court to advise a defendant of any defense of which he had prior knowledge); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 573 , 109 S.Ct. 757, 764 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (stating that “no conscious waiver is necessary with respect to each potential defense relinquished by a plea of guilty”); United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117, 123 (2nd Cir.1998) (declaring that “the court has no duty under Rule 11(f) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Decaress Smithgreen1 sentence2014See SDCL 23A-7-2 (Rule 11(a)); SDCL 23A-7-4 (Rule 11(c)); SDCL 23A-7-14 (Rule 11(f)); Lodermeier v. State, 273 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D.1978) (holding that there is no requirement for a circuit court to advise a defendant of any defense of which he had prior knowledge); see also United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 573 , 109 S.Ct. 757, 764 , 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (stating that “no conscious waiver is necessary with respect to each potential defense relinquished by a plea of guilty”); United States v. Smith, 160 F.3d 117, 123 (2nd Cir.1998) (declaring that “the court has no duty under Rule 11(f) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schmiedtgreen1 sentence1996State v. Schmiedt, 525 N.W.2d 253, 255 (S.D.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Camp Crook Independent School District No. 1 v. Shevlinggreen2 sentences1983No. 1 v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 26 , 270 N.W. 518, 524 (1936); but cf. Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459 (1973) (which was decided on South Dakota banking statutes, rather than an explicit test). 1983No. 1 v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 26 , 270 N.W. 518, 524 (1936); but cf. Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459 (1973) (which was decided on South Dakota banking statutes, rather than an explicit test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bankgreen2 sentences1983No. 1 v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 26 , 270 N.W. 518, 524 (1936); but cf. Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459 (1973) (which was decided on South Dakota banking statutes, rather than an explicit test). 1983No. 1 v. Shevling, 65 S.D. 14, 26 , 270 N.W. 518, 524 (1936); but cf. Valley State Bank of Canton v. Farmers State Bank, 87 S.D. 614 , 213 N.W.2d 459 (1973) (which was decided on South Dakota banking statutes, rather than an explicit test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Quebec Bank v. Carroll
neutral
1 sentence1924In view of the 'impossibility of giving reasonable meaning to the clause by a literal interpretation; in view- of the absence of language indicating a legislative intent that a majority of the electors of the entire district was contemplated; in view of the duty of courts in construing statutes “to make all its parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a sensible and intelligent effect to each” (Quebec Bank v. Carroll, 1 S. D. 1, 44 N. W. 723 ); in view of the practical construction of this clause by Attorneys General Hall and Johnson (Jordan v. Mellette County, 38 S. D. 299, 161 N. W. 279 ) ; | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Jordan v. Mellette County
green
1 sentence1924In view of the 'impossibility of giving reasonable meaning to the clause by a literal interpretation; in view- of the absence of language indicating a legislative intent that a majority of the electors of the entire district was contemplated; in view of the duty of courts in construing statutes “to make all its parts harmonize, if practicable, and give a sensible and intelligent effect to each” (Quebec Bank v. Carroll, 1 S. D. 1, 44 N. W. 723 ); in view of the practical construction of this clause by Attorneys General Hall and Johnson (Jordan v. Mellette County, 38 S. D. 299, 161 N. W. 279 ) ; | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.