Legal Opinion · Dissent
Dahl v. Combined Insurance Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided January 17, 2001No. NonePublished
1DissentAmundson, Justice
[¶ 20.] It is true that Dahl is entitled to all favorable inferences and we should view his version of the facts as true, for summary judgment purposes. Barnaud v. Belle Fourche Irrigation Dist., 2000 SD 57, ¶ 11, 609 N.W.2d 779, 781 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c)). This rule of law is tempered by the equally important rule that Dahl must make more than bare assertions in order to survive a motion for summary judgment. Id. Dahl must purport more than the mere factual allegation that he was terminated. Sorrels v. Queen of Peace Hosp., 1999 SD 133, ¶ 18, 601 N.W.2d 606, 610 (Konenkamp, J.,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1994
- Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1995
- Niesent v. Homestake Mining Co. of CaliforniaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Pamela Ludwig v. C & a Wallcoverings, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation D/B/A Kinney WallcoveringsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.