Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Fender

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1984No. 14333Published

1ConcurrenceHenderson, Justice

Due to the dissertation on aggravated assault and particularly the footnote thereon contained in the majority opinion, I am forced to concur in the result of this opinion and not vote a straight concurrence. How can I place my imprimatur on the author’s dissertation, particularly the footnote, when it is an obvious attempt to undermine, again, the holding by this Court in State v. Feyereisen, 348 N.W.2d 384 (S.D.1984), State v. Cook, 319 N.W.2d 809, 811 (S.D.1982), and State v. Corle, 294 N.W.2d 799 (S.D.1980)?

In Feyereisen, 343 N.W.2d at 386, we stated:

In light of the state statute and our…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. CookSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State Ex Rel. Widdoss v. EsmaySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1948
  3. State v. CorleSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Matter of AckermanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API