Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tucek v. Mueller

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 9, 1994No. 18122Published

1DissentAmundson, Justice

Tucek brought this action against Mueller for fraud, deceit, and conversion. Tucek alleged in a separate count that Hieb, Bank, Adjuster, Adjusting Company and Insurer were liable for fraud and deceit. This action was commenced some twenty months after she deposited the settlement proceeds into her bank accounts.

Choice of Remedies

Tucek argues that the trial court is obligated to allow her a choice of either rescission or monetary damages as her remedy for fraud. Her argument is somewhat unclear in that the trial court did precisely what she is requesting. After the hearing on the motion for…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Garrett v. BankWest, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. PerranoskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
  4. O'CONNOR v. KingSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Kaas v. PrivetteCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974

6 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