Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kauth v. Bartlett

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 2008No. 24414Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

[¶ 27.] I agree with the majority opinion’s determination that the parties raised the issue of deviation and therefore, the referee could consider a deviation. However, I disagree that the statute itself limits consideration of a deviation only to instances where a party raises the issue of a deviation. Admittedly, some of our prior case law suggested a deviation can only be considered if a party raises it. See Wagner, 2006 SD 31, ¶ 9, 712 N.W.2d at 657 (noting the statute “only allows a referee to address deviations when one has been ‘raised’ by a party and only upon the entry of specific…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. In Re the Marriage of VetternackSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
  2. Kost v. KostSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Stach v. StachSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Ellis v. EllisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1978
  5. Vander Woude v. Vander WoudeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API