6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1938–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vail v. Denver Building & Construction Tradesgreen2 sentences1994State Highway Comm’n v. Wieczorek, 248 N.W.2d 369, 372-73 (S.D.1976) (citation omitted); Vail v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 108 Colo. 206 , 115 P.2d 389, 391 (1941). 1994State Highway Comm’n v. Wieczorek, 248 N.W.2d 369, 372-73 (S.D.1976) (citation omitted); Vail v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 108 Colo. 206 , 115 P.2d 389, 391 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
STATE HIGHWAY COM'N, ETC. v. Wieczorekgreen1 sentence1994State Highway Comm’n v. Wieczorek, 248 N.W.2d 369, 372-73 (S.D.1976) (citation omitted); Vail v. Denver Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 108 Colo. 206 , 115 P.2d 389, 391 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
West v. John Morrell & Co.green1 sentence1994See West v. John Morrell & Co., 460 N.W.2d 745, 748 (S.D.1990), Sabers, J. and Miller, C.J., concurring in result ("The test is whether the change in the statute constitutes a change in substantive law (as opposed to procedural law) and not whether a change in the statute affects the substantive rights of the parties. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hutton v. Autoridad Sobre Hogares De La Capital
green
2 sentences1976In this regard, in Hutton, supra, at page 993, there appears: "`Where a statute is repealed, a general saving statute operates to save any substantive right of a private nature, liability, right of action, penalty, forfeiture or offense which has accrued under the repealed statute.'" And 82 C.J.S. 1976In this regard, in Hutton, supra, at page 993, there appears: “ ‘Where a statute is repealed, a general saving statute operates to save any substantive right of a private nature, liability, right of action, penalty, forfeiture or offense which has accrued under the repealed statute.’ ” And 82 C.J.S. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
Newgirg v. Black
green
1 sentence2011Newgirg v. Black, 174 Iowa 636, 645 , 156 N.W. 708 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Luikart v. Higgins
green
2 sentences1942R. 1245, and annotation at page 1252 and especially note at page 1259; Luikart v. Higgins et al., 130 Neb. 395 , 264 N. W. 903 ; White v. Idsardi, 253 App. Div. 96 , 300 N. Y. 1942R. 1245, and annotation at page 1252 and especially note at page 1259; Luikart v. Higgins et al., 130 Neb. 395 , 264 N. W. 903 ; White v. Idsardi, 253 App. Div. 96 , 300 N. Y. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
White v. Idsardi
green
1 sentence1942R. 1245, and annotation at page 1252 and especially note at page 1259; Luikart v. Higgins et al., 130 Neb. 395 , 264 N. W. 903 ; White v. Idsardi, 253 App. Div. 96 , 300 N. Y. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Haberlach v. Tillamook County Bank
green
2 sentences1942R. 894], in which we held: “ ‘The repeal of a constitutional provision, imposing double liability on corporate stockholders of an insolvent bank, not containing a saving clause, does not affect the obligation of such stockholders as to liabilities incurred by the banking institution prior to such repeal.’ ” See Haberlach v. Tillamook County Bank et al., 134 Or. 279 , 293 P. 927 , 72 A. L. 1942R. 894], in which we held: “ ‘The repeal of a constitutional provision, imposing double liability on corporate stockholders of an insolvent bank, not containing a saving clause, does not affect the obligation of such stockholders as to liabilities incurred by the banking institution prior to such repeal.’ ” See Haberlach v. Tillamook County Bank et al., 134 Or. 279 , 293 P. 927 , 72 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Ward v. Fletcher
green
1 sentence1938C. 1919, because, in prescribing what should constitute void ballots, the Legislature placed therein a saving clause, as follows : “Provided, that when the “X” marks on a ballot are sufficiently plain to gather therefrom a part of the voter’s intention, it shall foe the duty of the judges of election to count such paid.” In Ward et al. v. Fletcher et al., 36 S. D. 98, 153 N. W. 962, 965 , this court said that the courts and election judges should strive to determine and -carry out the intention of the elector when satisfied that the elector has endeavored to express such intention in the manne | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.