Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Centrol, Inc. v. Morrow

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1992No. 17417Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWuest, Justice

The majority opinion wrongly disposes of the damages issue. The award of damages should be reversed in toto with directions only to redetermine damages. The authority cited by the majority does not support its decision requiring the trial court to redetermine damages based on the current state of the record. In M & M Contracting, cited by the majority, we held we were unable to make a determination of what damages should be from the record and remanded to the trial court with directions to make the determination. We did not direct that the redetermination be made from the record. Id., 334…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Malcolm v. MalcolmSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Flockhart v. WyantSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Rusch v. KaukerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Nielsen v. McCabeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

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