Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fenske Printing, Inc. v. Brinkman

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 23, 1984No. 14351Published

1ConcurrenceHenderson, Justice

(specially concurring).

I specially concur to say that the samples submitted by State Publishing did comply with the specification requirement and were subject to testing as to color and weight. Therefore, I perceive no undue advantage that has been taken of appellant.

Any noncompliance here was, at most, minimal. “Slight and insignificant imperfections or deviations may be ‘overlooked, on the principle of de minimis non curat *49lex,’ ” Cassino v. Yacevich, 261 App.Div. 685, 687, 27 N.Y.S.2d 95, 98 (1941), “which means that the law will not concern itself with trifles.” Yeakel v. Driscoll, —…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cassino v. YacevichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
  2. Yeakel v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API