Novak v. CJ Grossenburg and Son
South Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentColer, Justice
I agree with Justice Wollman that we should affirm. The validity of the release was not raised by the pleading; no evidence was produced to support such a claim and it was neither briefed nor argued. On page 5 of the appellant’s brief this statement appears: “The claimant has not challenged the validity of this release * *
It may be that in the future, with the words “by accident” removed from SDCL 62-1-1(2), that the claimant would have a valid claim. Further, as Justice Wollman’s dissent points out, to sustain claimant’s theory in this case would require this court to give retroactive effect…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Evans's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Rock's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
- Trellsite Foundry & Stamping Co. v. Enterprise FoundryMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Chittenden v. JarvisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
- Brinkert v. Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.