Legal Opinion · Dissent

SDDS, Inc. v. State

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1993No. 17841Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

When determining venue, trial courts are not to decide proper forum by a process of elimination. Rather, they are to look *858where venue has a statutory right to exist. See SDCL eh. 15-5. As cases are to be tried “where the cause, or some part thereof, arose,” the trial court certainly did not abuse its discretion in finding the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Fall River County, home of this dispute, to be appropriate venue for this action. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Although the Seventh Judicial Circuit provided adequate venue for SDDS I and SDDS IV, the majority writing holds that such venue…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Deaconess Hospital v. Washington State Highway CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Weaver v. BoortzSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Jensen v. WeyrensSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Matter of Estate of PejsaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990

9 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