S.D. Codified Laws » S.D. Codified Laws / Title 59 / Chapter 2
South Dakota Codified Laws

S.D. Codified Laws § 59-2-3 (2026)

Form of authority.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SD-LEGsdlegislature.gov JustiaS.D. Codified Laws CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

59-2-3. Form of authority.

An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract, other than a negotiable instrument, required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.

Source: CivC 1877, § 1348; CL 1887, § 3971; RCivC 1903, § 1667; RC 1919, § 1249; SDC 1939, § 3.0204.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1975–2006 · leading case: Melstad v. Kovac, 2006 SD 92 (S.D. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Melstad v. Kovac, 2006 SD 92 (S.D. 2006). · cites it 5× “Melstad relies on SDCL 59-2-3, which provides, “authority to enter into a contract .”
Staab v. Skoglund, 234 N.W.2d 45 (S.D. 1975). · cites it 2× “" SDCL 59-2-3 provides: "An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract, other than a negotiable instrument, required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.”
In Re Gridley, 149 B.R. 128 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1992). “§ 59-2-3. Further, even though Debtor was aware of the loans and participated in the arrangements, Claimant’s own subsequent actions confirm Debtor is not liable for repayment.”
Endres v. Warriner, 307 N.W.2d 146 (S.D. 1981). “Appellants cite SDCL 59-2-3, which provides: An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract, other than a negotiable instrument, required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing. As we have…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.