Log In
  • US
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

South Dakota Case Commentaries

Nonlawyer Guardians Cannot Perfect Appeals in South Dakota: Notices of Appeal Filed on Behalf of Wards Are Ineffective to Invoke Appellate Jurisdiction

Nonlawyer Guardians Cannot Perfect Appeals in South Dakota: Notices of Appeal Filed on Behalf of Wards Are Ineffective to Invoke Appellate Jurisdiction

Date: Nov 1, 2025
Nonlawyer Guardians Cannot Perfect Appeals in South Dakota: Notices of Appeal Filed on Behalf of Wards Are Ineffective to Invoke Appellate Jurisdiction Introduction In Danielson v. LifeScape, 2025...
Clarifying “Ability to Pay” in Alimony Contempt: Assets and Borrowing Capacity Must Be Considered; Good‑Faith Career Changes Can Warrant Modification (Peery v. Peery, 2025 S.D. 57)

Clarifying “Ability to Pay” in Alimony Contempt: Assets and Borrowing Capacity Must Be Considered; Good‑Faith Career Changes Can Warrant Modification (Peery v. Peery, 2025 S.D. 57)

Date: Nov 1, 2025
Clarifying “Ability to Pay” in Alimony Contempt: Assets and Borrowing Capacity Must Be Considered; Good‑Faith Career Changes Can Warrant Modification Introduction In Peery v. Peery, 2025 S.D. 57, the...
State v. Bordeaux (2025 S.D. 55): Tightened Similarity Requirement for Rule 404(b) Intent/Common-Plan Evidence and Reversal Where “Violent When Drinking” Propensity Theme Dominates

State v. Bordeaux (2025 S.D. 55): Tightened Similarity Requirement for Rule 404(b) Intent/Common-Plan Evidence and Reversal Where “Violent When Drinking” Propensity Theme Dominates

Date: Oct 16, 2025
State v. Bordeaux (2025 S.D. 55): Tightened Similarity Requirement for Rule 404(b) Intent/Common-Plan Evidence and Reversal Where “Violent When Drinking” Propensity Theme Dominates Introduction In...
Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota

Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota Introduction In Record Expungement of Jones, 2025 S.D. 54, the Supreme Court of South...
No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law

No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law

Date: Sep 25, 2025
No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law Case: McCook Lake Recreation Area v. Dakota Bay, LLC, 2025...
Actual Value Controls Over Productivity Schedules: No Certified Appraisal Required, and Agencies Must Find Market Value

Actual Value Controls Over Productivity Schedules: No Certified Appraisal Required, and Agencies Must Find Market Value

Date: Sep 19, 2025
Actual Value Controls Over Productivity Schedules: No Certified Appraisal Required, and Agencies Must Find Market Value Introduction In Pallansch v. Roberts County, 2025 S.D. 52, the Supreme Court of...
Parental Primacy Reaffirmed: No Non‑Parent Visitation Without Rebutting the Parental Presumption; ICWA Applies to Third‑Party Custody and the Duty to Inquire Rests with the Court

Parental Primacy Reaffirmed: No Non‑Parent Visitation Without Rebutting the Parental Presumption; ICWA Applies to Third‑Party Custody and the Duty to Inquire Rests with the Court

Date: Aug 28, 2025
Parental Primacy Reaffirmed: No Non‑Parent Visitation Without Rebutting the Parental Presumption; ICWA Applies to Third‑Party Custody and the Duty to Inquire Rests with the Court Introduction In...
State v. Bradshaw: South Dakota Clarifies “Unnecessary Delay” Dismissals under SDCL 23A-44-3 and Distinguishes the 180-Day Rule

State v. Bradshaw: South Dakota Clarifies “Unnecessary Delay” Dismissals under SDCL 23A-44-3 and Distinguishes the 180-Day Rule

Date: Aug 21, 2025
State v. Bradshaw: South Dakota Clarifies “Unnecessary Delay” Dismissals under SDCL 23A-44-3 and Distinguishes the 180-Day Rule Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota | Citation: 2025 S.D. 48 | Date:...
Successive Leases Stand Alone: South Dakota Supreme Court Holds “Then Existing Mortgage” Means the Current (Refinanced) Debt and Rejects Carry-Forward of Prior Reserve Obligations

Successive Leases Stand Alone: South Dakota Supreme Court Holds “Then Existing Mortgage” Means the Current (Refinanced) Debt and Rejects Carry-Forward of Prior Reserve Obligations

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Successive Leases Stand Alone: South Dakota Supreme Court Holds “Then Existing Mortgage” Means the Current (Refinanced) Debt and Rejects Carry-Forward of Prior Reserve Obligations Introduction In...
Interrogatory Admissions Can Establish “Damage” and Trigger a Jury Question on Constructive Notice Under SDCL 31‑32‑10; Statutory Authorization Bars Municipal Nuisance Claims — Commentary on Mahmoudi v. City of Spearfish, 2025 S.D. 49

Interrogatory Admissions Can Establish “Damage” and Trigger a Jury Question on Constructive Notice Under SDCL 31‑32‑10; Statutory Authorization Bars Municipal Nuisance Claims — Commentary on Mahmoudi v. City of Spearfish, 2025 S.D. 49

Date: Aug 21, 2025
Interrogatory Admissions Can Establish “Damage” and Trigger a Jury Question on Constructive Notice Under SDCL 31‑32‑10; Statutory Authorization Bars Municipal Nuisance Claims Introduction This...
Lefors v. Lefors: Stacking Per‑Violation Civil Penalties and No Show‑Cause Requirement for Visitation-Order Sanctions Under SDCL 25‑4A‑5

Lefors v. Lefors: Stacking Per‑Violation Civil Penalties and No Show‑Cause Requirement for Visitation-Order Sanctions Under SDCL 25‑4A‑5

Date: Aug 14, 2025
Lefors v. Lefors: Stacking Per‑Violation Civil Penalties and No Show‑Cause Requirement for Visitation-Order Sanctions Under SDCL 25‑4A‑5 Introduction In Lefors v. Lefors, 2025 S.D. 46, the Supreme...
State v. Anderson: No Isomer Distinction—l‑Methamphetamine Is a Schedule II Substance; Broad Trial-Court Discretion Over Daubert Hearings and Expert Disclosures

State v. Anderson: No Isomer Distinction—l‑Methamphetamine Is a Schedule II Substance; Broad Trial-Court Discretion Over Daubert Hearings and Expert Disclosures

Date: Aug 14, 2025
State v. Anderson: No Isomer Distinction—l‑Methamphetamine Is a Schedule II Substance; Broad Trial-Court Discretion Over Daubert Hearings and Expert Disclosures Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota...
Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence: Clarifying UCC Installment-Contract Breach and Flexible Contract Formation Under § 2-204

Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence: Clarifying UCC Installment-Contract Breach and Flexible Contract Formation Under § 2-204

Date: Aug 14, 2025
Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence: Clarifying UCC Installment-Contract Breach and Flexible Contract Formation Under § 2-204 Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota Citation: 2025 S.D. 47 Date:...
Best-Interests Check Required for No-Contact Provisions in Domestic Abuse Protection Orders Involving Children; Laser Targeting Can Establish “Fear of Imminent Harm” under SDCL 25-10

Best-Interests Check Required for No-Contact Provisions in Domestic Abuse Protection Orders Involving Children; Laser Targeting Can Establish “Fear of Imminent Harm” under SDCL 25-10

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Best-Interests Check Required for No-Contact Provisions in Domestic Abuse Protection Orders Involving Children; Laser Targeting Can Establish “Fear of Imminent Harm” under SDCL 25-10 Case: Wagner v....
South Dakota Supreme Court bars punitive damages for breach of the UCC implied covenant of good faith; Rule 50(b) motion preserved new ground when unopposed — Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc., 2025 S.D. 43

South Dakota Supreme Court bars punitive damages for breach of the UCC implied covenant of good faith; Rule 50(b) motion preserved new ground when unopposed — Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard Construction, Inc., 2025 S.D. 43

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Punitive damages are unavailable for breach of the UCC implied covenant of good faith; unobjected Rule 50(b) motion preserves new legal grounds Introduction In Goldenview Ready-Mix, LLC v. Grangaard...
Voluntary Workers’ Compensation Payments Do Not Shift Burden or Trigger SDCL 62-7-33 Review: Claimant Retains Burden to Prove Major Contributing Cause

Voluntary Workers’ Compensation Payments Do Not Shift Burden or Trigger SDCL 62-7-33 Review: Claimant Retains Burden to Prove Major Contributing Cause

Date: Jul 24, 2025
Voluntary Workers’ Compensation Payments Do Not Shift Burden or Trigger SDCL 62-7-33 Review: Claimant Retains Burden to Prove Major Contributing Cause Case: Pham v. Smithfield Foods, 2025 S.D. 41...
Absolute Privilege Under SDCL 20-11-5(2) Extends to Tortious Interference and Covers Tribal Administrative Proceedings; Pleading Defect Cured by Implied Consent

Absolute Privilege Under SDCL 20-11-5(2) Extends to Tortious Interference and Covers Tribal Administrative Proceedings; Pleading Defect Cured by Implied Consent

Date: Jul 24, 2025
Absolute Privilege Under SDCL 20-11-5(2) Extends to Tortious Interference and Covers Tribal Administrative Proceedings; Pleading Defect Cured by Implied Consent Introduction In Rowe v. Rowe, 2025...
Death of a Partner Triggers Accrual; Harmless-Error Tolerance for Premature Limitations Motions: Commentary on Nelson v. Tinkcom, 2025 S.D. 42

Death of a Partner Triggers Accrual; Harmless-Error Tolerance for Premature Limitations Motions: Commentary on Nelson v. Tinkcom, 2025 S.D. 42

Date: Jul 24, 2025
Death of a Partner Triggers Accrual; Harmless-Error Tolerance for Premature Limitations Motions: Commentary on Nelson v. Tinkcom, 2025 S.D. 42 Introduction In Nelson v. Tinkcom, the Supreme Court of...
Alexander v. Estate of Hobart: ROFRs Conditioned on USFS Permit Issuance Are Enforceable; Market/Arbitration-Based ROFRs Are Not Unreasonable Restraints

Alexander v. Estate of Hobart: ROFRs Conditioned on USFS Permit Issuance Are Enforceable; Market/Arbitration-Based ROFRs Are Not Unreasonable Restraints

Date: Jul 24, 2025
Alexander v. Estate of Hobart: ROFRs Conditioned on USFS Permit Issuance Are Enforceable; Market/Arbitration-Based ROFRs Are Not Unreasonable Restraints Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota Citation:...
Actual Physical Residency at Time of Receipt Required to Invoke South Dakota’s Anti‑Spam Statute: Commentary on Lapin v. Zeetogroup (2025 S.D. 36)

Actual Physical Residency at Time of Receipt Required to Invoke South Dakota’s Anti‑Spam Statute: Commentary on Lapin v. Zeetogroup (2025 S.D. 36)

Date: Jul 17, 2025
Actual Physical Residency at Time of Receipt Required to Invoke South Dakota’s Anti‑Spam Statute: Lapin v. Zeetogroup (2025 S.D. 36) Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota | Date: July 16, 2025 |...
Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert