Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Cross

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1991No. 17147Published

1ConcurrenceHenderson, Justice

(specially concurring).

Willingly and proudly I served under the Fosheim Court *. As I write this special writing, the “old 180-day rule” will be supplanted with a new look. This “new 180-day rule” was lifted, by and large, from our legal brothers in the State of Nebraska where it has served them well. There is a great deal of settled law, in Nebraska, under the “new 180-day rule.”

With the advent of this “new 180-day rule,” on the horizon in this state, I wish to join this opinion; however, I do so with reservations. First of all, I concurred in result in Tiedeman due to one principal reason,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Urban J. Didier, A/K/A "Harp,"Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. People v. DeasonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
  3. Commonwealth v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API