Legal Opinion

Ackerman v. Burgard

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 25, 1961No. File 9883, 9884PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanson, J.

In these two actions which have been consolidated for purposes of appeal the plaintiffs, Frank J. Ackerman and Frances A. Ackerman, are husband and wife. The trial court rendered default judgments in favor of each plaintiff in separate actions for damages against the defendant, Nick Burgard, doing business as Burgard and Sons. Defendant has appealed from orders denying motions to vacate such judgments. Only case No. 9884, wherein Frank J. Ackerman is plaintiff, has been briefed by counsel. To avoid needless repetition we will follow the same *121pattern in this opinion as both cases involve the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hinz v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  2. Griswold Linseed Oil Co. v. LeeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Busser v. NobleAppellate Court of Illinois · 1956
  4. Searles v. ChristensenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Fisk v. HicksSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. National Surety Corporation v. ShoemakerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Davis v. Interstate Motor Carriers AgencySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Overvaag v. City of Dell Rapids, S.D.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Eby v. MisarSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Rogers v. RogersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984

20 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