Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Estate of Smid

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 2008No. 24466Published

1DissentKonenkamp, Justice

[¶ 42.] During the oral argument in this appeal, one of the lawyers asserted that the same rules courts apply to commercial contracts should also apply to marital agreements. Today, the Court embraces this bleak and mercantile view of marriage. Indeed, to support its decision on voluntariness, the Court cites all commercial cases as authority. It is true that courts have often said that marriages are contractual in nature, but the many complementary rights, duties, and remedies of married couples are also governed by statute and precedent, wholly apart from the general rules of contract. We…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. In Re Marriage of BondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Randolph v. RandolphTennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Ward v. LangeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  5. McHugh v. McHughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980

20 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