Legal Opinion

State v. Sullivan

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 2002No. NonePublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

[¶ 1.] Mark Sullivan appeals his convictions on four counts of forgery. We affirm.

FACTS

[¶ 2.] From October 2000 to March 2001, Sullivan was employed by Ionex Communications of Sioux Falls. Ionex is a telephone service provider and Sullivan was employed as a sales representative working on a commission basis. In late 2000 and early 2001, Sullivan made a series of contacts with three different businessmen in Madison. One of the three men managed two branches of an agricultural service business. Each of the other two men owned their own business. None of the three agreed to purchase their…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  2. State v. KarlenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. ThornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. State v. VerhoefSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State v. HaaseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. GardSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. IwanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. HernandezSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API