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 1980–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Gregory Countygreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Nelson v. Gregory County, 323 N.W.2d 139, 142 (S.D. 1982) (noting that an exception to the doctrine of merger is “the existence of collateral contractual provisions or agreements which are not intended to be merged in the deed”). -15- #28927 with the third-party tenants’ rental payments, toward the outstanding balance of the loan Landsman obtained from Midwest to fund the remainder of the purchase price Landsman had agreed to pay for this property. 2002Doctrine of Merger [¶ 15.] The doctrine of merger provides “that upon delivery and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged within.” Nelson v. Gregory County, 323 N.W.2d 139, 141 (S.D.1982). | 3 | 3 |
Urquhart v. Tellergreen2 sentences2002In Urquhart v. Teller, 288 Mont. 497 , 958 P.2d 714, 719 (1998), the Montana Supreme Court noted that, “[i]t is a general tenet of contract law that all provisions in a contract for sale of real property are merged into the deed. 2002In Urquhart v. Teller, 288 Mont. 497 , 958 P.2d 714, 719 (1998), the Montana Supreme Court noted that, “[i]t is a general tenet of contract law that all provisions in a contract for sale of real property are merged into the deed. | 2 | 2 |
Hartman v. Woodgreen2 sentences2002Under the doctrine of merger, Donald’s first-chance-to-buy under the contract did not survive Dean’s payoff of the contract. [¶ 16.] We also note that in general, “title to property under a deed deposited into escrow transfers when the escrow delivers the deed or when the conditions placed upon its delivery have been met.” Hartman v. Wood, 436 N.W.2d 854, 856 (S.D.1989) (citing 28 Am.Jur.2d Escrow 29 (1966)). 2002Under the doctrine of merger, Donald's first-chance-to-buy under the contract did not survive Dean's payoff of the contract. [¶ 16.] We also note that in general, "title to property under a deed deposited into escrow transfers when the escrow delivers the deed or when the conditions placed upon its delivery have been met." Hartman v. Wood, 436 N.W.2d 854, 856 (S.D.1989) (citing 28 Am.Jur.2d Escrow 29 (1966)). | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Fisher v. Fishergreen2 sentences2020Landsman argues that Hanna is precluded by the doctrine of merger from undoing “the transfer of real estate that was conveyed by warranty deed many years ago.” “The doctrine of merger provides ‘that upon delivery and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged within.’” Estate of Fisher v. Fisher, 2002 S.D. 62 , ¶ 15, 645 N.W.2d 841, 846 (citation omitted). 2011The doctrine of merger provides: “[U]pon delivery and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged within.” Estate of Fisher v. Fisher, 2002 S.D. 62 , ¶ 15, 645 N.W.2d 841, 846 . | 1 | 2 |
Hammerquist v. Warburtongreen2 sentences2011Lev also points out that under the integration clause in the purchase agreement, the parties’ written agreement became the complete and final statement of the parties’ obligations. [¶ 15.] Tolle argues that the collateral contract exception to the doctrine of merger applies. 7 There are two tests to determine if the collateral contract exception applies: “(1) whether the collateral contract forms an integral part of the principal purpose of the deed, namely conveyance of title and quantity of land, and (2) whether the parties intended the contract to be collateral.” Hammerquist v. Warburton, 4 2011Lev also points out that under the integration clause in the purchase agreement, the parties’ written agreement became the complete and final statement of the parties’ obligations. [¶ 15.] Tolle argues that the collateral contract exception to the doctrine of merger applies. 7 There are two tests to determine if the collateral contract exception applies: “(1) whether the collateral contract forms an integral part of the principal purpose of the deed, namely conveyance of title and quantity of land, and (2) whether the parties intended the contract to be collateral.” Hammerquist v. Warburton, 4 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Burtongreen2 sentences1980See State v. Essman, supra; People v. Ireland, supra; People v. Moran, supra; and State v. Branch, supra. Additionally, not all instances of assault will trigger merger. “[The] inquiry cannot stop with the fact that death resulted from the use of a deadly weapon and, therefore, technically included an assault with a deadly weapon, but must extend to an investigation of the purpose of the conduct.” People v. Burton, 6 Cal.3d 375 , 491 P.2d 793, 801 (1971). 1980See State v. Essman, supra; People v. Ireland, supra; People v. Moran, supra; and State v. Branch, supra. Additionally, not all instances of assault will trigger merger. “[The] inquiry cannot stop with the fact that death resulted from the use of a deadly weapon and, therefore, technically included an assault with a deadly weapon, but must extend to an investigation of the purpose of the conduct.” People v. Burton, 6 Cal.3d 375 , 491 P.2d 793, 801 (1971). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pinkerton v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The United States Supreme Court in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), considered a situation where, as in this case, some overt acts charged in the conspiracy count were the same acts charged as offenses in the substantive counts, and where each of the substantive offenses was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. 1982The United States Supreme Court in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), considered a situation where, as in this case, some overt acts charged in the conspiracy count were the same acts charged as offenses in the substantive counts, and where each of the substantive offenses was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Shock
green
2 sentences1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). 1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Viser
green
2 sentences1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). 1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Amos Branch
green
2 sentences1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). 1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Wanrow
red
2 sentences1980See People v. Viser, supra; State v. Wanrow, 91 Wash.2d 301 , 588 P.2d 1320 (1978). 1980See People v. Viser, supra; State v. Wanrow, 91 Wash.2d 301 , 588 P.2d 1320 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Fisher
green
2 sentences1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). 1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). 1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Robles v. State
green
2 sentences1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). 1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Essman
green
2 sentences1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). 1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Tarter v. State
green
2 sentences1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). 1980Among those jurisdictions-following the merger rule are: Arizona (State v. Essman, 98 Ariz. 228 , 403 P.2d 540 (1965)); California (People v. Ireland, supra); Kansas (State v. Fisher, 120 Kan. 226 , 243 P. 291 (1926)); Missouri (State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552 (1878)); New York (People v. Moran, supra); Oklahoma (Tarter v. State, 359 P.2d 596 (Okl.Cr.App.1961)); and Oregon (State v. Branch, 244 Or. 97 , 415 P.2d 766 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hilliard v. State
green
2 sentences1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). 1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Baker v. State
green
2 sentences1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). 1980States that have declined to adopt the merger doctrine include: Florida (Robles v. State, 188 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1966)); Georgia (Baker v. State, 236 Ga. 754 , 225 S.E.2d 269 (1976)); Illinois (People v. Viser, 62 Ill.2d 568 , 343 N.E.2d 903 (1975)); Texas (Hilliard v. State, 513 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.Cr.App.1974)); and Washington (See Annot., 40 A.L.R.3d 1341 (1971); State v. Harris, 69 Wash.2d 928 , 421 P.2d 662 (1966)). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.