Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rosebud Federal Credit Union v. Mathis Implement, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 1994No. 18451Published

1ConcurrenceMiller, Chief Justice

I agree the circuit court’s order denying Rosebud’s motion for default judgment should be reversed, but write specially to assert that in South Dakota an individual who is not a licensed attorney may not appear pro se to represent a corporation of which he is a director, officer or shareholder.

In spite of protestations he was not representing Mathis Implement, Inc., Richard Mathis was neither a named defendant nor had he been made a party through intervention under SDCL 15-6-24(a).1 Mathis’ interest at the hearing was as a shareholder of fifty percent of the stock of the corporation of which…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  2. Hunt v. HuntSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Mobridge Community Industries, Inc. v. Toure, Ltd.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Baatz v. Arrow BarSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Construction, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1979

6 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