6 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Summersgreen2 sentences2026Id. at 797. [¶24.] On the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the district court in Levene noted that this Court has “consistently held that an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se.” Id. at 807 (quoting Thompson v. Summers, 567 N.W.2d 387, 393 (S.D. 1997)). 2026SDCL 49-28A-3. -16- #30776 [¶30.] Further, “[t]his Court has consistently held that ‘an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se.’” Thompson, 1997 S.D. 103 , ¶ 16, 567 N.W.2d at 393 (applying negligence per se in case alleging violation of federal and state statutes) (citation omitted); Fritz v. Howard Twp., 1997 S.D. 122 , ¶ 16, 570 N.W.2d 240, 243 (noting violation of a safety statute is negligence per se in cases where the state adopted the national standards for all traffic control devices and state law required that signs “conform to uniform | 4 | 4 |
Fritz v. Howard Townshipgreen2 sentences2026SDCL 49-28A-3. -16- #30776 [¶30.] Further, “[t]his Court has consistently held that ‘an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se.’” Thompson, 1997 S.D. 103 , ¶ 16, 567 N.W.2d at 393 (applying negligence per se in case alleging violation of federal and state statutes) (citation omitted); Fritz v. Howard Twp., 1997 S.D. 122 , ¶ 16, 570 N.W.2d 240, 243 (noting violation of a safety statute is negligence per se in cases where the state adopted the national standards for all traffic control devices and state law required that signs “conform to uniform 2025See id. (“[A]n unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se.” (citation omitted) (alteration in original)). | 2 | 2 |
Bell v. East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2015Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. | 2 | 2 |
Nicolay v. Stukelgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., Nicolay v. Stukel, 2017 S.D. 45 , ¶ 20, 900 N.W.2d 71, 79 (“Ordinarily, the violation of a statute or ordinance, unless under certain circumstances which are excusable or justifiable, constitutes negligence [p]er se if such violation is the proximate cause of the injury to the person for whose protection the statute was enacted.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Engel v. Stockgreen2 sentences1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. 1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fortner v. Tecchio Trucking, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2026SDCL 49-28A-3. -16- #30776 [¶30.] Further, “[t]his Court has consistently held that ‘an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se.’” Thompson, 1997 S.D. 103 , ¶ 16, 567 N.W.2d at 393 (applying negligence per se in case alleging violation of federal and state statutes) (citation omitted); Fritz v. Howard Twp., 1997 S.D. 122 , ¶ 16, 570 N.W.2d 240, 243 (noting violation of a safety statute is negligence per se in cases where the state adopted the national standards for all traffic control devices and state law required that signs “conform to uniform | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Davies v. Gphc, LLC
green
2 sentences2026The court in Levene recognized that under South Dakota law, “where a particular statutory or regulatory standard is enacted to protect persons in the plaintiff’s position or to prevent the type of accident that occurred, and the plaintiff can establish this relationship to the statute, [an] unexplained violation of that standard renders the defendant negligent as a matter of law.” Id. at 808 (quoting Davies v. GPHC, LLC, 2022 S.D. 55, ¶ 43 , 980 N.W.2d 251, 263 ). [¶25.] One of the issues in Levene was whether a negligence per se claim could be based on a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.14.3 Id. 2026The court in Levene recognized that under South Dakota law, “where a particular statutory or regulatory standard is enacted to protect persons in the plaintiff’s position or to prevent the type of accident that occurred, and the plaintiff can establish this relationship to the statute, [an] unexplained violation of that standard renders the defendant negligent as a matter of law.” Id. at 808 (quoting Davies v. GPHC, LLC, 2022 S.D. 55, ¶ 43 , 980 N.W.2d 251, 263 ). [¶25.] One of the issues in Levene was whether a negligence per se claim could be based on a violation of 49 C.F.R. § 392.14.3 Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bothern v. Peterson
neutral
2 sentences1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. 1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Blakey v. Boos
green
2 sentences1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. 1997Power Coop., Inc., 535 N.W.2d 750, 755 (S.D.1995) (citing Engel v. Stock, 88 S.D. 579 , 225 N.W.2d 872, 873 (1975); Bothern v. Peterson, 83 S.D. 84 , 155 N.W.2d 308 (1967); Blakey v. Boos, 83 S.D. 1 , 153 N.W.2d 305 (1967)). [¶ 17.] Third, Thompson argues that Summers violated certain federal regulations 5 relating to hot air balloon piloting and landing safety, including proper use of the ripcord in emergency operations. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.