Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Eischen v. Wayne Township

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 2008No. 24438Published

1ConcurrenceSabers, Justice

[¶ 33.] I generally agree with the spirit of the dissent, but I am satisfied there are facts in this case that demonstrate the trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting the 15-6-41(b) motion.

[¶ 34.] Between November 10, 1998, the date of the fire, and November 11, 2002, defense counsel requested “the identity of persons that plaintiffs’ counsel wanted to depose” on at least ten different occasions. Every request was ignored or unanswered. From November 11, 2002, it appears that defense counsel “gave up” attempting to obtain the identities, and with good reason. Plaintiffs’…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Holmoe v. ReussSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Jenco, Inc. v. United Fire GroupSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Pearson v. O'Neal-LetcherSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API