terms exception in South Dakota

1983Paddock v. Balgord, 2 S.D. 100 , 48 N.W. 840 (1891).

1983Paddock v. Balgord, 2 S.D. 100 , 48 N.W. 840 (1891).

2016SDCL 2-14-1; Magellan Pipeline Co.; 2013 S.D. 68, ¶ 9 , 837 N.W.2d at 404 .

2016SDCL 2-14-1; Magellan Pipeline Co.; 2013 S.D. 68, ¶ 9 , 837 N.W.2d at 404 .

2005Then in 2002, as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001), the South Dakota Department of Corrections amended the terms of the waiver condition in South Dakota parole agreements.

2005Then in 2002, as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001), the South Dakota Department of Corrections amended the terms of the waiver condition in South Dakota parole agreements.

1985Estate of Bode, supra. Furthermore, we point out that a party invoking protection of an exception to a general law must show himself clearly within the terms of that exception.

1958The applicable principle is well stated in 59 C.J. p. 1092, as follows: ‘Exceptions, as a general rule, should be strictly, but reasonably, construed; they extend only so far as their language-fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provision rather than the exception.’ ” See-also Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Stensland, 70 S.D. *427 103, 15 N.W.2d 8 ; Nord v. Connecticut General Life Ins.