6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daktronics, Inc. v. LBW Tech Co., Inc.green2 sentences2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off 2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off | 2 | 2 |
Teague v. BAD RIVER CHIPPEWA INDIANSgreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off 2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off | 2 | 2 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2008To satisfy due process, a putative defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice: In International Shoe [Co. v. Washington], the United States Supreme Court established the minimum contacts test for determining whether personal jurisdiction comports with Fourteenth Amendment due process. 326 U.S. [310,] 316, 66 S.Ct. [154,] 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 [(1945)]. 2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off | 1 | 4 |
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off 2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off | 1 | 2 |
Rush v. Savchukgreen1 sentence2025The difference between “in rem” and “quasi in rem” jurisdiction is that “[a] judgment in rem affects the interests of all persons in designated property,” while “[a] judgment quasi in rem affects the interests of particular persons in designated property.” Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 199 n.17 (emphasis added); see also Froelich v. Swafford, 150 N.W. 893 , 893 (S.D. 1914) (discussing “actions in rem or quasi in rem”). -6- #30871 jurisdiction . . . is consistent with the Due Process Clause” under “the minimum- contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe.” Id. at 207 ; Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 3 | 1 | 1 |
Execu-Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co. Ltd.green1 sentence2005See Execu-Tech, 752 So.2d at 585-86 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Milliken v. Meyer
green
2 sentences2008According to the Court, due process requires that a non-resident defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). 2008According to the Court, due process requires that a non-resident defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 , 61 S.Ct. 339, 343 , 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). | 2 | 2005–2008 |
Hinshaw v. Mahler
green
2 sentences2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , 66 SCt 154, 158 , 90 LEd 95 (1945)); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 665 NW2d 899, 910 (Wis 2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F3d 1178 (9thCir 1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2]. 2007Accordingly, whether tribal courts have personal jurisdiction over a party is analyzed using the minimum contacts standard expressed in International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Teague v. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 265 Wis.2d 64 , 665 N.W.2d 899, 910 (2003) (citing Hinshaw v. Mahler, 42 F.3d 1178 (9thCir.1994)); see also Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law, at 7.02[2], We inquire whether Father “had sufficient minimum contacts with [SWO reservation] to conclude that the assertion of jurisdiction does not off | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
1 sentence2025The difference between “in rem” and “quasi in rem” jurisdiction is that “[a] judgment in rem affects the interests of all persons in designated property,” while “[a] judgment quasi in rem affects the interests of particular persons in designated property.” Shaffer, 433 U.S. at 199 n.17 (emphasis added); see also Froelich v. Swafford, 150 N.W. 893 , 893 (S.D. 1914) (discussing “actions in rem or quasi in rem”). -6- #30871 jurisdiction . . . is consistent with the Due Process Clause” under “the minimum- contacts standard elucidated in International Shoe.” Id. at 207 ; Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 3 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2014Rather, “[d]ue process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. at 2174 ). 2014Rather, “[d]ue process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. at 2174 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Walden v. Fiore
green
2 sentences2014Such a situation would place too much power in the hands of a plaintiff to unilaterally affect the minimum contacts analysis — an analysis meant to be driven by an examination of the defendant’s acts. [¶ 20.] Even if we were to credit Bowyer with two trips into the forum, however, the second trip is susceptible of the same criticism as the first: “[T]he plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum.” Fiore,-U.S. at-, 134 S.Ct. at 1122 . 2014Rather, “[d]ue process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State.” Id. at -, 134 S.Ct. at 1123 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 , 105 S.Ct. at 2174 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.