Legal Opinion

Karst v. Shur-Co.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 20, 2016No. 27348, 27362PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

■ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Richard and Susan Karst sued Shur Company and Wilson Trailer Company on negligence arid strict-liability causes of action.1 Karsts alleged defective design and improper warnings relating to Shur’s electric-tarp system that Wilson included on a grain trailer it sold to Richard. The circuit court granted summary judgment against Karsts on their failure-to-warri claims, and a jury found in favor of Defendants on Karsts’ remairiing claims. On appeal Karsts argue that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury, in granting summary judgment on the improper-warm ing…

2Cases cited58 opinions

  1. Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  3. Sollami v. EatonIllinois Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Seattle-First National Bank v. TabertWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1986

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Stern Oil Co. v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  2. Bruce Lindholm v. BMW of North America, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017
  3. S.D. Petroleum Release Compensation Fund v. BpSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Lindholm v. BMW of North America, LLCDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 2016
  5. Mendenhall v. SwansonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017

12 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