Moeller v. State
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice
I agree that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal but would hold that Moel-ler’s claim is clearly barred by SDCL 21-32-2, which states: “Action on any claim on contract or tort against the state shall be commenced within one year after same has arisen.” (Emphasis added.) In the absence of fraud, continuing treatment or representation, South Dakota recognizes the occurrence rule, not the discovery rule. Kurylas, Inc. v. Bradsky, 452 N.W.2d 111, 114-15 (S.D.1990); Schoenrock v. Tappe, 419 N.W.2d 197, 199-200 (S.D.1988); Wells v. Billars, 391 N.W.2d 668, 672-73 (S.D.1986) (Morgan, J.,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sharp v. SharpSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Schoenrock v. TappeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1988
- Alberts v. GiebinkSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
- Bayer v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- Kurylas, Inc. v. BradskySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.