Legal Opinion

Bruntz v. Rutherford

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1990No. 16591PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WUEST, Chief Justice.

Appellants, Jonas Bruntz and Betty Bruntz, et al., (collectively referred to as “Bruntz”), appeal from a summary judgment entered by the circuit court. We affirm.

Bruntz, and others, were investors in securities and promissory notes which were issued by M.J. Rutherford. M.J. Rutherford’s wife, Kathryn L. Rutherford (Kathryn), was also an investor in these notes. She was not, however, a partner with respect to her husband’s investment company. M.J. Rutherford misappropriated the funds and subsequently found himself .unable to pay his creditors. As a result he filed a…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Great Northern Railway CompanySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. Felco Jewel Industries, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Levy v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Hamaker v. Kenwel-Jackson MacHine, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Melbourn v. BenhamSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Speck v. Federal Land Bank of OmahaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Bruntz v. RutherfordSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Estes v. MilleaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Estes v. MilleaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Lewton v. McCauleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API