Rosebud Federal Credit Union v. Mathis Implement, Inc.
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Hunt v. HuntSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Mobridge Community Industries, Inc. v. Toure, Ltd.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Baatz v. Arrow BarSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Construction, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.