6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Golden v. Oahe Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2022What is prohibited, then, under claim preclusion is the cause of action itself, but under issue preclusion, it “is the particular issue or fact common to both actions.” Bollinger v. Eldredge, 524 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D. 1994) (quoting Golden v. Oahe Enters., Inc., 90 S.D. 263, 275 , 240 N.W.2d 102, 109 (S.D. 1976)). [¶42.] Res judicata arguments are analyzed under a well-established four- part test: (1) the issue in the prior adjudication must be identical to the present issue, (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits in the previous case, (3) the parties in the two actions must b 2022What is prohibited, then, under claim preclusion is the cause of action itself, but under issue preclusion, it “is the particular issue or fact common to both actions.” Bollinger v. Eldredge, 524 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D. 1994) (quoting Golden v. Oahe Enters., Inc., 90 S.D. 263, 275 , 240 N.W.2d 102, 109 (S.D. 1976)). [¶42.] Res judicata arguments are analyzed under a well-established four- part test: (1) the issue in the prior adjudication must be identical to the present issue, (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits in the previous case, (3) the parties in the two actions must b | 1 | 1 |
Bollinger v. Eldredgegreen1 sentence2022What is prohibited, then, under claim preclusion is the cause of action itself, but under issue preclusion, it “is the particular issue or fact common to both actions.” Bollinger v. Eldredge, 524 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D. 1994) (quoting Golden v. Oahe Enters., Inc., 90 S.D. 263, 275 , 240 N.W.2d 102, 109 (S.D. 1976)). [¶42.] Res judicata arguments are analyzed under a well-established four- part test: (1) the issue in the prior adjudication must be identical to the present issue, (2) there must have been a final judgment on the merits in the previous case, (3) the parties in the two actions must b | 1 | 1 |
Cracraft v. City of St. Louis Parkgreen1 sentence2020Louis Park, 279 N.W.2d 801, 806-07 (Minn. 1979), Tipton I did not reverse Hagen’s conclusions with respect to building codes. | 1 | 1 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF NICHOLS v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2003The test promulgated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Nichols provides that a party will be estopped if: 1) “the parties freely and knowingly stipulated to fixed, permanent, and non-modifiable maintenance payments and said stipulation was incorporated into the divorce judgment”; 2) “the stipulation was part of a comprehensive settlement of all property and maintenance issues which was approved by the circuit court”; 3) “the overall settlement, at the time it was incorporated into the divorce judgment, was fair, equitable, not illegal and not against public policy”; and 4) “the party seeking r 2003The test promulgated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Nichols provides that a party will be estopped if: 1) “the parties freely and knowingly stipulated to fixed, permanent, and non-modifiable maintenance payments and said stipulation was incorporated into the divorce judgment”; 2) “the stipulation was part of a comprehensive settlement of all property and maintenance issues which was approved by the circuit court”; 3) “the overall settlement, at the time it was incorporated into the divorce judgment, was fair, equitable, not illegal and not against public policy”; and 4) “the party seeking r | 1 | 1 |
Janklow v. Kellergreen2 sentences2001See Hackworth v. Larson, 83 S.D. 674 , 165 N.W.2d 705, 709 (S.D.1969); Janklow v. Keller, 90 S.D. 322 , 241 N.W.2d 364, 367 (1976). [¶ 12.] The trial court used the four part test in Janklow to determine whether the absolute privilege applied in this case. 2001See Hackworth v. Larson, 83 S.D. 674 , 165 N.W.2d 705, 709 (S.D.1969); Janklow v. Keller, 90 S.D. 322 , 241 N.W.2d 364, 367 (1976). [¶ 12.] The trial court used the four part test in Janklow to determine whether the absolute privilege applied in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Hackworth v. Larsongreen2 sentences2001See Hackworth v. Larson, 83 S.D. 674 , 165 N.W.2d 705, 709 (S.D.1969); Janklow v. Keller, 90 S.D. 322 , 241 N.W.2d 364, 367 (1976). [¶ 12.] The trial court used the four part test in Janklow to determine whether the absolute privilege applied in this case. 2001See Hackworth v. Larson, 83 S.D. 674 , 165 N.W.2d 705, 709 (S.D.1969); Janklow v. Keller, 90 S.D. 322 , 241 N.W.2d 364, 367 (1976). [¶ 12.] The trial court used the four part test in Janklow to determine whether the absolute privilege applied in this case. | 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. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. 2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Moeller
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Leisinger
green
2 sentences2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. 2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. James R. Carman, Also Known as Carman Carman, Also Known as Jim Carman, Also Known as James Carmen
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences1991Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 , 97 S.Ct. 1076 , 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977). 1991Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 , 97 S.Ct. 1076 , 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.