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 1996–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert O. McDonnell v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2013One such rule, former Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , 5 provided: A petition may be dismissed if it appears that the state of which the respondent is an officer has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the petition by delay in its filing unless the petitioner shows that it is based on grounds on which he could not have had knowledge by the exercise of reasonable diligence before the circumstances prejudicial to the state occurred. “[The purpose of former Rule 9(a) ] was to codify the equitable doctrine of laches which had been appli | 1 | 1 |
Ike v. Doolittlegreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Ike v. Doolittle, 61 Cal.App.4th 51 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 887, 907 (1998). 2008See, e.g., Ike v. Doolittle, 61 Cal.App.4th 51 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 887, 907 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Conway v. Conwaygreen2 sentences2001Laches [¶ 17.] To establish a successful defense under the doctrine of laches, Martin must show, “(1) she had full knowledge of the facts upon which the action is based, (2) regardless of this knowledge, she engaged in an unreasonable delay before commencing the suit, and (3) that allowing her to maintain the action would prejudice other parties.” Conway v. Conway, 487 N.W.2d 21, 24 (S.D.1992) (citations omitted). [¶ 18.] Crystal had the child, knew Martin was the child’s father and knew he had an obligation to support the child. 2001Laches [¶ 17.] To establish a successful defense under the doctrine of laches, Martin must show, "(1) she had full knowledge of the facts upon which the action is based, (2) regardless of this knowledge, she engaged in an unreasonable delay before commencing the suit, and (3) that allowing her to maintain the action would prejudice other parties." Conway v. Conway, 487 N.W.2d 21, 24 (S.D.1992) (citations omitted). [¶ 18.] Crystal had the child, knew Martin was the child's father and knew he had an obligation to support the child. | 1 | 1 |
Knaus v. Yorkgreen2 sentences1998Knaus v. York, 586 N.E.2d 909, 914 (Ind.Ct.App.l992)(“This court will not penalize a child for his or her parent’s delay in pursuing child support.”); see In re Marriage of Truax, 522 N.E.2d 402, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.1988)(eight year delay in filing a petition may not be attributed to the children for whose benefit the child support was due). 1998Knaus v. York, 586 N.E.2d 909, 914 (Ind.Ct.App.1992)("This court will not penalize a child for his or her parent's delay in pursuing child support."); see In re Marriage of Truax, 522 N.E.2d 402, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.1988)(eight year delay in filing a petition may not be attributed to the children for whose benefit the child support was due). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Truaxgreen2 sentences1998Knaus v. York, 586 N.E.2d 909, 914 (Ind.Ct.App.l992)(“This court will not penalize a child for his or her parent’s delay in pursuing child support.”); see In re Marriage of Truax, 522 N.E.2d 402, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.1988)(eight year delay in filing a petition may not be attributed to the children for whose benefit the child support was due). 1998Knaus v. York, 586 N.E.2d 909, 914 (Ind.Ct.App.1992)("This court will not penalize a child for his or her parent's delay in pursuing child support."); see In re Marriage of Truax, 522 N.E.2d 402, 407 (Ind.Ct.App.1988)(eight year delay in filing a petition may not be attributed to the children for whose benefit the child support was due). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). 1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Mele v. Olivagreen2 sentences1998See also Mele, 670 A.2d at 709 (no evidence the father would have foregone marriage and children had action been brought earlier). [¶ 38.] The doctrine of laches “simply does not apply” to claims for retroactive child support in paternity cases. 1998See also Mele, 670 A.2d at 709 (no evidence the father would have foregone marriage and children had action been brought earlier). [¶ 38.] The doctrine of laches "simply does not apply" to claims for retroactive child support in paternity cases. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Samsongreen2 sentences1996See In re Marriage of Samson, 245 Mont. 464 , 802 P.2d 1241 (1990) (modification action filed five years after court decision notifying Wife of her rights barred by doctrine of laches). [¶ 20] III. 1996See In re Marriage of Samson, 245 Mont. 464 , 802 P.2d 1241 (1990) (modification action filed five years after court decision notifying Wife of her rights barred by doctrine of laches). [¶ 20] III. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Culhane v. Michels
green
1 sentence2012As in Culhane, the doctrine of laches does not apply to the delay in seeking to reduce Kathy’s support obligation. * “Logically, enforcing a valid judgment would rarely invoke the application of laches.” Culhane, 2000 S.D. 101 , ¶ 15, 615 N.W.2d at 586 . [¶ 12.] Finally, Anthony argues that the circuit court improperly denied his motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hallums v. Hallums
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). 1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Seegert v. Zietlow
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). 1998See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 187 Ariz. 527 , 931 P.2d 427 (Ariz.Ct.App.1996); Seegert v. Zietlow, 95 Ohio App.3d 451 , 642 N.E.2d 697 (1994); Hallums v. Hallums, 296 S.C. 195 , 371 S.E.2d 525 (1988). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.