Legal Opinion

State v. Hurst

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1993No. 18089, 18090PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SABERS, Justice.

Defendants appeal them convictions for conspiracy to commit theft by deception and theft by deception. We affirm.

1. Theft by Deception1

State claims that defendants Willard Hurst, Jr. (Hurst) and Telford Tofflemire (Tofflemire) contracted with MDS to incinerate MDS’ medical waste in Aberdeen, S.D. State further claims that Defendants buried the medical waste in Mellette County, South Dakota instead of incinerating it at Aberdeen as contracted, thereby deceptively obtaining substantial sums of money from MDS and that this conduct constituted conspiracy and theft by deception.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. RoweCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
  2. State v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. BurtzlaffSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  4. State v. Shank & BradleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
  5. State v. ObanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Nelson v. Nelson Cattle Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  2. LDL Cattle Co., Inc. v. GuetterSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. MorseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Central Monitoring Service, Inc. v. ZakinskiSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Kent v. LyonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996

14 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