Legal Opinion
Ripple v. Wold
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided January 13, 1998No. 19987PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SABERS, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the motion to substitute parties for deceased plaintiffs was untimely.
FACTS
[¶ 2.] In November 1992, Lester and Maurine Ripple (Ripples) entered into a contract for deed and a personal care agreement with Roger and Nancy Wold (Wolds). Ripples agreed to sell approximately eighty-seven acres of land to Wolds for $60,000 and Wolds agreed to personally care for Ripples. For each month they provided personal services, Wolds were to receive a $250 credit against their monthly payment on the contract for deed.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brian Barlow v. George Ground, Officer 9129 L.O. Oberlies, Officer 1706 A. Tucker, Officer 9363 Ray Shay, Officer 3269Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Fariss v. Lynchburg FoundryCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1985
- United States v. Miller Brothers Construction Company, Rapidways, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
- Grandbouche v. LovellCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1990
- Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wold Family Farms, Inc. v. Heartland Organic Foods, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- Leighton v. BennettSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Leighton v. BennettSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2019
- Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass'n v. Brookings County Planning & Zoning CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
- In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of MurphySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.