Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Clausen v. Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 26, 1999No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ANDERSON, LEE D., Circuit Judge

(concurring in result in part and dissenting in part).

[¶ 31.] I respectfully dissent as to Issue 1. I concur in the result reached by the majority on Issue 2, and I concur on Issue 3 with the majority’s holding that the prevailing parties should be allowed to recover costs and disbursements.

[¶ 32.] 1. Duty of care AGI owed to Clausen.

[¶ 33.] Upon the filing of a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue of fact exists. Benson v. Goble, 1999 SD 38, ¶ 9, 593 N.W.2d 402. Because Mrs. Clausen…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bosak v. HutchinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Wagner v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  3. McCubbin Ex Rel. McCubbin v. WalkerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1994
  4. Ashby v. Northwestern Public Service Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Benson v. GobleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999

2 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