Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Estate of Howe

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 2004No. NonePublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice

[¶ 65.] • I concur in all respects except that I dissent on issue 3.

[¶ 66.] This is a lawsuit conceived in greed and executed with almost robot-like precision. It was from start to finish the pinnacle of selfishness and greed, the likes of which the world would do better without.

[¶ 67.] Michael, as personal representative for the wrongful death heirs of the estate of Edna Howe, had a fiduciary duty to do right by them. He breached this obligation at every opportunity. Michael had a fiduciary obligation to include, not exclude, all the wrongful death heirs of the Edna Howe estate in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Argo Oil Corporation v. LathropSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Lintz v. Holy Terror Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1900

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

Powered by the Exa API