Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dakota Truck Underwriters v. South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 27, 2004No. NonePublished

1DissentGilbertson, Chief Justice

[¶ 39.] I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the Department of Labor decision, as I agree that neither equitable tolling nor equitable estoppel allow the resurrection of Insurer’s claims.

[¶ 40.] I agree with the Court that the issues in this case turn on the application of the statute of limitations and interpretation of the effect of a statutory amendment. Homestake Mining Co. v. South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund, 2002 SD 46, ¶ 12, 644 N.W.2d 612, 616. As such, both applications are reviewed by this Court de novo giving no deference to the circuit court’s conclusions of law. Id.

[¶ 41.]…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Irwin v. Department of Veterans AffairsSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Soriano v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Robert Warren v. Department of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
  4. Chipperfield v. WoessnerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  5. State of Minn. Ex Rel. Hove v. DoeseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993

9 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