Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fox v. Burden

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1999No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

[¶ 48.] I concur on Issues 1, 2, 3 and 5.1 dissent on Issues 4 and 6.

[¶ 49.] I would reverse and remand to permit the amendment of Mother’s answers to interrogatories and to require a jury trial, including the claim for setoff.

[¶ 50.] I dissent on Issue 4 because the trial court erred in denying a jury trial.

[¶ 51.] 4. The trial court erred in denying a jury trial.

[¶ 52.] The trial court erred in denying a jury trial because this claim is in essence a claim for money damages. Under the constitution, any person has a right to a jury trial on claims for money damages. This absolute right to a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Knowles v. United StatesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. StrainSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  4. First W. Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock YardsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Nizielski v. TvinnereimSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990

4 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