Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Peters v. BARKER & LITTLE, INC.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided September 2, 2009No. 24948Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKonenkamp, Justice
[¶ 17.] Circuit courts have discretion to enter defaults against parties who “failed to plead or otherwise defend,” but no court has discretion to award a default judgment for statutory penalties and punitive damages absent adequate evidentiary support. See SDCL 15-6-55(a). In upholding the denial of the motion to set aside the default, this Court never reaches the primary question: did the circuit court fail to require sufficient proof of statutory penalties and punitive damages? As the circuit judge himself said in 2003, “a $24,000 default judgment is an inappropriate windfall here given…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Comdyne I, Inc. v. CorbinCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Action S.A. And Deltamar Establishment v. Marc Rich & Co., Inc. And Marc Rich, Marc RichCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- James v. FrameCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Stephenson Ex Rel. Estate of MJK Clearing, Inc. v. El-BatrawiCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- H.B. Hunt and Lola N. Hunt v. Inter-Globe Energy, Inc., John A. Corrente, Forest N. Simon, Third-Party Glenda Perry Simon, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.