Legal Opinion

Harriman v. United Dominion Industries, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 2005No. NonePublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1.] John Carl Harriman entered into an oral agreement to sell service bodies for Feterl Manufacturing. The duration of the contract was never discussed by the parties. United Dominion Industries, Inc. (UDI) purchased Feterl Manufacturing and sought to reduce Harriman’s commission structure. Dissatisfied with UDI’s final commission proposal, Harriman resigned and brought suit alleging a joint venture between the parties, the wrongful termination of a permanent employment contract, fraud and deceit. At a jury trial on the matter, Harriman prevailed on his claim of…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. State v. MichalekSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Kjerstad v. Ravellette Publications, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Sabag v. Continental South DakotaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Kiely v. St. GermainSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  5. Veeder v. KennedySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Hahne v. BurrSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Cimpl's, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Knigge v. B & L Food Stores, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Fin-Ag, Inc. v. Cimpl's, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2008
  5. Harriman v. United Dominion Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2005

1 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