Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wasserburger v. Consolidated Management Corp.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1993No. 17884, 17908Published

1ConcurrenceHenderson, Justice

(specially concurring).

This writing is directed to issue 4 as raised by Hughes on his personal liability. Digesting the treatment of this issue, it appears that we decide this issue on procedure. Was Judge Davis’ declaration for Hughes to release the fund an (a) Order or (b) a Judgment? At first blush, I assumed that if it was an Order, Hughes did not have to provide a written notice of the filing of the Order; however, if it was a judgment, to set the time running, he had to serve a notice of entry of judgment on his adversary. It seemed to me that our decision, concerning this legal point,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Wildcat Cave, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Weaver v. BoortzSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Hogg v. First National Bank of AberdeenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  4. City and County of Honolulu v. KamHawaii Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Savard v. Physicians Casualty Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API