6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bd. of Zon. App. v. Amer. Fletch. Nat. Bk.green2 sentences2000Bank, 139 Ind. App. 9 , 205 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1965). [¶ 14.] In City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1980) we applied the three part test contained in SDCL 11-4-17(3) to decide this type of an issue. 2000Bank, 139 Ind. App. 9 , 205 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1965). [¶ 14.] In City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1980) we applied the three part test contained in SDCL 11-4-17(3) to decide this type of an issue. | 2 | 2 |
Cindy Louise Cross v. City of Des Moines, John Woolsey Dennis Rich, Cindy Louise Cross v. City of Des Moines, John Woolsey Dennis Richgreen1 sentence1994Foulks v. Cole Cnty., 991 F.2d 454 , 456 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Cross v. City of Des Moines, 965 F.2d 629, 631-32 (8th Cir.1992)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Madison v. Clarke
green
2 sentences2000Bank, 205 NE2d 322, 324 (IndCtApp 1965). [¶14] In City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 NW2d 312 (SD 1980) we applied the three part test contained in SDCL 11-4-17(3) to decide this type of an issue. 2000Bank, 139 Ind. App. 9 , 205 N.E.2d 322, 324 (1965). [¶ 14.] In City of Madison v. Clarke, 288 N.W.2d 312 (S.D.1980) we applied the three part test contained in SDCL 11-4-17(3) to decide this type of an issue. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Gonzalez
green
2 sentences2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. 2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Moeller
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Leisinger
green
2 sentences2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. 2006The four part test announced in State v. Gonzalez, 2001 SD 47, ¶ 11 , 624 N.W.2d 836, 839 , was abandoned by this Court in Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 , after developments in the federal court system refined Brady suppression analysis to a three part test. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Strickler v. Greene
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. James R. Carman, Also Known as Carman Carman, Also Known as Jim Carman, Also Known as James Carmen
green
2 sentences2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). [9] For the full text of Piper's statement at his sentencing hearing, see note 25. [10] The facts supporting Anderson's death penalty sentence are reviewed in Moeller II, 2000 SD 122, ¶¶ 169-171 , 616 N.W.2d at 464 . 2006Leisinger, 2003 SD 118, ¶ 13 , 670 N.W.2d at 374 (citing Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); United States v. Carman, 314 F.3d 321 (8thCir.2002)). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Swedlund v. Foster
green
2 sentences2005Swedlund v. Foster, 2003 SD 8, ¶ 19 , 657 N.W.2d 39, 48 . 2005Swedlund v. Foster, 2003 SD 8, ¶ 19 , 657 N.W.2d 39, 48 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Foulks v. Cole County, Missouri
green
1 sentence1994Foulks v. Cole Cnty., 991 F.2d 454 , 456 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Cross v. City of Des Moines, 965 F.2d 629, 631-32 (8th Cir.1992)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
cluster 274240
green
2 sentences1992As an aid to analyze the extent of a plaintiffs negligence, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals offered a three part test in Associated Engineers v. Job, 370 F.2d 633 , 641 (8th Cir.1966) cert. denied 389 U.S. 823 , 88 S.Ct. 59 , 19 L.Ed.2d 77 (1967). 1992Judge (later Justice) Blackmun arrived at these three factors after an in depth examination of South Dakota case law on the subject, Associated Engineers v. Job, 370 F.2d at 641: Three factors may properly be considered in appraising the quality of a plaintiffs negligence: the precautions he took for his own safety; the extent to which he should have comprehended the risk as a result of warnings, experience, or other factors, and the foreseeability of injury as a consequence of his conduct. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hensley v. Fort Worth & Denver Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1992As an aid to analyze the extent of a plaintiffs negligence, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals offered a three part test in Associated Engineers v. Job, 370 F.2d 633 , 641 (8th Cir.1966) cert. denied 389 U.S. 823 , 88 S.Ct. 59 , 19 L.Ed.2d 77 (1967). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Purex Corp. v. St. Louis National Stockyards Co.
green
1 sentence1992As an aid to analyze the extent of a plaintiffs negligence, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals offered a three part test in Associated Engineers v. Job, 370 F.2d 633 , 641 (8th Cir.1966) cert. denied 389 U.S. 823 , 88 S.Ct. 59 , 19 L.Ed.2d 77 (1967). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.