Utah Idaho Sugar Co. v. Temmey
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment on a single issue, namely, “Was it operating under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on August 13, 1937, the date of defendant employee Umenthum’s injury?” Umenthum maintained the negative of this proposition. The trial court concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff had manifested an election not to operate under the act. It entered judgment however dismissing the action. In reviewing the record we seek to determine whether the entry of such judgment was prejudicial to the plaintiff.
This action was instituted prior to the commencement of another action…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Field v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Application of Dakota Transp. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1940
- Henderson Tire & Rubber Co. v. GregoryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- National Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Boe v. FossSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
- Oahe Conservancy Subdistrict v. JanklowSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- National Bank of Tulsa Bldg. v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- State Ex Rel. Oster v. JorgensonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1965
- State of South Dakota v. National Bank of South DakotaDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1963
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.