Legal Opinion

Nature's 10 Jewelers v. Gunderson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 2002No. NonePublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GORS, Acting Justice (on reassignment).

[¶ 1.] Sam Savage (Savage) and Rossi Fine Jewelers (Rossi) each separately sued Nature’s 10, Inc. (Nature’s 10), and various directors and officers. In both cases, the *805trial court ruled that federal law and the contracts between the parties mandated arbitration in both cases. We hold that the contract between Savage and Nature’s 10 is void, and therefore compulsory arbitration is not required. We reverse. (In a separate decision, we decide that the same arbitration clause in the contract between Rossi and Nature’s 10 is valid and requires compulsory…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  2. Thunderstik Lodge, Inc. v. ReuerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Party Yards, Inc. v. TempletonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  4. Rossi Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. GundersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  5. City of Hot Springs v. Gunderson's, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Brouillard v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2015
  2. Frankel v. Citicorp Insurance Services, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  3. Knecht v. EvridgeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Rossi Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. GundersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. GardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007

13 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