Legal Opinion · Dissent

Novak v. CJ Grossenburg and Son

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1975No. File 11521Published

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

  1. Evans's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Rock's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948
  3. Trellsite Foundry & Stamping Co. v. Enterprise FoundryMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Chittenden v. JarvisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Brinkert v. Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1941

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