Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Burlington Northern Railroad v. Green

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 2001No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAmundson, Justice

[¶ 33.] The circuit court originally granted BNRR’s motion to amend its complaint so it could potentially recover a refund for the first half of its 1994 taxes. The court then reversed field and denied BNRR’s motion to amend without explanation. The general rule is that a motion to amend is freely granted and a circuit court should do so unless it will somehow prejudice the adverse party. See SDCL 15 — 6— 15(a); Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc., 517 N.W.2d 419, 423 (S.D.1994).

[¶ 34.] Without evidence of the trial court’s rationale for denying BNRR’s motion, however, this Court cannot…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Michlitsch v. MeyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Watson-Wojewski v. WojewskiSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People ex rel. W.Y.B.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API