Legal Opinion
Morgan v. Baldwin
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided January 24, 1990No. 16561PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HERTZ, Circuit Judge.
The trial court found that appellants’ John W. Morgan and Diane C. Morgan (Morgans) claim against appellee, Gerald M. Baldwin (Baldwin) was essentially a claim for attorney malpractice rather than a contract claim. The trial court applied the three year statute of limitations, SDCL 15-2-14.2, rather than the six year limitation prescribed for contract actions, SDCL 15-2-13(1), and granted Baldwin summary judgment. Morgans appeal. We reverse and remand for trial.
We do not reach the merits of this case since the summary judgment involves only the question of what statute of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Wilson v. Great Northern Railway CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
- Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc. And Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Ward v. LangeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
- Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
- Weitzel v. Sioux Valley Heart PartnersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
- Zoss v. SchaefersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. BurnsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.