6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1961–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
William Edwards v. Aetna Life Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2026“The essential function of judicial estoppel is to prevent intentional inconsistency; the object of the rule is to protect the judiciary, as an institution, from the perversion of judicial machinery.” Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. South Dakota State Board of Dentistrygreen1 sentence2004Only where there-is an ambiguity in an agency rule may a court “look to the object of the rule and the evil or mischief which it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable construction which best accomplishes the purpose of the rule.” Island v. Dept, of Corrections, 1996 SD 28, ¶8 , . 545 N.W.2d 201, 203 (quoting Nelson v. South Dakota State Bd. of Dentistry, 464 N.W.2d 621, 624 (S.D.1991)). ■ ■ [¶ 10.] Here, there' is no ambiguity. | 1 | 1 |
Island v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2004Only where there-is an ambiguity in an agency rule may a court “look to the object of the rule and the evil or mischief which it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable construction which best accomplishes the purpose of the rule.” Island v. Dept, of Corrections, 1996 SD 28, ¶8 , . 545 N.W.2d 201, 203 (quoting Nelson v. South Dakota State Bd. of Dentistry, 464 N.W.2d 621, 624 (S.D.1991)). ■ ■ [¶ 10.] Here, there' is no ambiguity. 2004Only where there-is an ambiguity in an agency rule may a court “look to the object of the rule and the evil or mischief which it is designed to remedy and apply a reasonable construction which best accomplishes the purpose of the rule.” Island v. Dept, of Corrections, 1996 SD 28, ¶8 , . 545 N.W.2d 201, 203 (quoting Nelson v. South Dakota State Bd. of Dentistry, 464 N.W.2d 621, 624 (S.D.1991)). ■ ■ [¶ 10.] Here, there' is no ambiguity. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Longo v. McIlmurray
neutral
2 sentences1991Longo v. McIlmurray, 115 Mich.App. 479 , 321 N.W.2d 701 (1982). 1991Longo v. McIlmurray, 115 Mich.App. 479 , 321 N.W.2d 701 (1982). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Trumbauer v. Rust
green
2 sentences1980It was understood that she held on to it until she died.” In determining whether a writing is a deed or a testamentary conveyance, the controlling question and the ultimate object of inquiry is: “What was the intent of the maker?” Trumbauer v. Rust, 36 S.D. 301 , 154 N.W. 801 (1915). 1980It was understood that she held on to it until she died.” In determining whether a writing is a deed or a testamentary conveyance, the controlling question and the ultimate object of inquiry is: “What was the intent of the maker?” Trumbauer v. Rust, 36 S.D. 301 , 154 N.W. 801 (1915). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Batterman
green
2 sentences1978It proceeds upon the supposition that, the several statutes were governed by one spirit and policy, and were intended to be consistent and harmonious in their several parts and provisions. * * * 79 S.D. at 199 , 110 N.W.2d at 143 . 1978It proceeds upon the supposition that, the several statutes were governed by one spirit and policy, and were intended to be consistent and harmonious in their several parts and provisions. * * * 79 S.D. at 199 , 110 N.W.2d at 143 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Merkamp v. Niles
green
2 sentences1961If it was to postpone title and enjoyment until after his death, the writing is not a deed; if it was to confer *352 title but to postpone the enjoyment thereof, it is a deed.” See also Merkamp v. Niles, 62 S.D. 241 , 252 N.W. 636 . 1961If it was to postpone title and enjoyment until after his death, the writing is not a deed; if it was to confer *352 title but to postpone the enjoyment thereof, it is a deed.” See also Merkamp v. Niles, 62 S.D. 241 , 252 N.W. 636 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.