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 1984–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Puckett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012“To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that there was: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it seriously affectfs] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Beck, 2010 S.D. 52 , ¶ 11, 785 N.W.2d 288, 293 (quoting State v. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67 , ¶ 26, 736 N.W.2d 808, 818 ); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 130 , 129 S.Ct. at 1426 (applying the same plain error standard of review). [¶ 15.] In its order granting Jones’s motion to reco 2012“To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that there was: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it seriously affectfs] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Beck, 2010 S.D. 52 , ¶ 11, 785 N.W.2d 288, 293 (quoting State v. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67 , ¶ 26, 736 N.W.2d 808, 818 ); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 130 , 129 S.Ct. at 1426 (applying the same plain error standard of review). [¶ 15.] In its order granting Jones’s motion to reco | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2012See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d at 70 (citing State v. Nelson, 1998 S.D. 124 , ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 ) (“When plain error is alleged, the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.”). [¶ 17.] Specifically, Jones has not shown that the State’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings where, as in this case, the trial court, after finding that there had been a material breach of the plea agreement used its discretion to grant Jones’s motion to reconsider. 2012See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d at 70 (citing State v. Nelson, 1998 S.D. 124 , ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 ) (“When plain error is alleged, the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.”). [¶ 17.] Specifically, Jones has not shown that the State’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings where, as in this case, the trial court, after finding that there had been a material breach of the plea agreement used its discretion to grant Jones’s motion to reconsider. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2012See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d at 70 (citing State v. Nelson, 1998 S.D. 124 , ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 ) (“When plain error is alleged, the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.”). [¶ 17.] Specifically, Jones has not shown that the State’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings where, as in this case, the trial court, after finding that there had been a material breach of the plea agreement used its discretion to grant Jones’s motion to reconsider. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beckgreen1 sentence2012“To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that there was: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it seriously affectfs] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Beck, 2010 S.D. 52 , ¶ 11, 785 N.W.2d 288, 293 (quoting State v. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67 , ¶ 26, 736 N.W.2d 808, 818 ); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 130 , 129 S.Ct. at 1426 (applying the same plain error standard of review). [¶ 15.] In its order granting Jones’s motion to reco | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bowkergreen2 sentences2012Jones has not demonstrated that the violation of the plea agreement resulted in plain error. [¶ 14.] “We invoke our discretion under the plain error rule cautiously and only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d 56, 70 (quoting State v. Robinson, 1999 S.D. *206 141, ¶ 17, 602 N.W.2d 730, 735 ). 2012See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 735 , 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1778 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); see also Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d at 70 (citing State v. Nelson, 1998 S.D. 124 , ¶ 7, 587 N.W.2d 439, 443 ) (“When plain error is alleged, the defendant bears the burden of showing the error was prejudicial.”). [¶ 17.] Specifically, Jones has not shown that the State’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings where, as in this case, the trial court, after finding that there had been a material breach of the plea agreement used its discretion to grant Jones’s motion to reconsider. | 1 | 1 |
Lykken v. Classgreen2 sentences1998Lykken v. Class, 1997 SD 29, ¶27 , 561 N.W.2d 302, 309 (citations omitted). [¶ 26] Jones contends he has been prejudiced because “had the issues of severance, prejudicial evidence, juror bias, judicial bias, unfamiliar sentencing judge, and a Doyle violation been raised on appeal, Jones would have prevailed on appeal[.]” We disagree. [1127] We find Jones’ claim that severance was not effectively raised on appeal to be without merit. 1998Lykken v. Class, 1997 SD 29, ¶27 , 561 N.W.2d 302, 309 (citations omitted). [¶ 26] Jones contends he has been prejudiced because “had the issues of severance, prejudicial evidence, juror bias, judicial bias, unfamiliar sentencing judge, and a Doyle violation been raised on appeal, Jones would have prevailed on appeal[.]” We disagree. [1127] We find Jones’ claim that severance was not effectively raised on appeal to be without merit. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewsgreen1 sentence1995In State v. Andrews, 393 N.W.2d 76, 79 (S.D.1986), we faced a similar challenge to the trial court’s refusal to sever the trial. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kyllo v. United States
green
1 sentence2017Kyllo states that exploration, of a home conducted with a device not in use by the general public is a presumptively unreasonable search. 533 U.S. at 40 , 121 S.Ct. at 2046. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Robinson
green
1 sentence2012Jones has not demonstrated that the violation of the plea agreement resulted in plain error. [¶ 14.] “We invoke our discretion under the plain error rule cautiously and only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” State v. Bowker, 2008 S.D. 61 , ¶ 46, 754 N.W.2d 56, 70 (quoting State v. Robinson, 1999 S.D. *206 141, ¶ 17, 602 N.W.2d 730, 735 ). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Mulligan
green
1 sentence2012“To demonstrate plain error, [the appellant] must establish that there was: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) affecting substantial rights; and only then may we exercise our discretion to notice the error if (4) it seriously affectfs] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’ ” State v. Beck, 2010 S.D. 52 , ¶ 11, 785 N.W.2d 288, 293 (quoting State v. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67 , ¶ 26, 736 N.W.2d 808, 818 ); see also Puckett, 556 U.S. at 130 , 129 S.Ct. at 1426 (applying the same plain error standard of review). [¶ 15.] In its order granting Jones’s motion to reco | 1 | 2012–2012 |
South Dakota Board of Nursing v. Jones
green
2 sentences2002Moreover, Jones’ defense has remained unchanged from her position in prior litigation where she also admitted attending births, but denied that her attendance at births constituted the practice of midwifery without a license in violation of SDCL ch. 36-9A. 6 See, South Dakota Bd. of Nursing v. Jones, 1997 SD 78 , ¶ 18 n. 6, 566 N.W.2d 142 , 147 n. 6. 2002Moreover, Jones’ defense has remained unchanged from her position in prior litigation where she also admitted attending births, but denied that her attendance at births constituted the practice of midwifery without a license in violation of SDCL ch. 36-9A. 6 See, South Dakota Bd. of Nursing v. Jones, 1997 SD 78 , ¶ 18 n. 6, 566 N.W.2d 142 , 147 n. 6. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lodermeier v. Class
green
2 sentences1998In Lodermeier we held that where the informal procedure of SDCL 15-12-21.1 is used, the affidavit procedure of SDCL 15-12-32 does not apply. 1996 SD 134 at ¶ 6 , 555 N.W.2d at 622 . 1998In Lodermeier we held that where the informal procedure of SDCL 15-12-21.1 is used, the affidavit procedure of SDCL 15-12-32 does not apply. 1996 SD 134 at ¶ 6 , 555 N.W.2d at 622 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Doyle v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1998The trial judge had previously granted Jones’ motion in limine to prevent the use of Jones’ post-arrest silence. [¶ 33] Jones argues that his Due Process and Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the detective’s testimony was presented at trial for non-impeachment purposes in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). 1998The trial judge had previously granted Jones’ motion in limine to prevent the use of Jones’ post-arrest silence. [¶ 33] Jones argues that his Due Process and Fifth Amendment rights were violated because the detective’s testimony was presented at trial for non-impeachment purposes in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of Estate of Landeen
green
2 sentences1984In Matter of Estate of Landeen, 264 N.W.2d 521 (S.D.1978), the contestants argued that the proponent’s attorney violated the Jones rule by continuing to represent a client after testifying in the case, which formed the basis of the representation. 264 N.W.2d at 524 . 1984In Matter of Estate of Landeen, 264 N.W.2d 521 (S.D.1978), the contestants argued that the proponent’s attorney violated the Jones rule by continuing to represent a client after testifying in the case, which formed the basis of the representation. 264 N.W.2d at 524 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.