Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Kroupa v. Kroupa

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1998No. NonePublished

1ConcurrenceKonenkamp, Justice

[¶ 37.] Although I agree with the majority opinion on the jurisdiction question, I write specially on Issue II because both the majority and the dissent misemploy our review standards and consequently fail to give appropriate deference to the trial court’s decision to enforce the parties’ settlement.

[¶ 38.] Settlements made in open court are generally binding, especially when entered on the record. In re Estate of Eberle, 505 N.W.2d 767, 770 (S.D.1993). Trial courts possess inherent or equitable power to summarily enforce agreements to settle pending cases. See, e.g., Murchison v. Grand…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
  3. Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  4. Mid-South Towing Company v. Har-Win, Inc. v. Okc Corporation Liquidating TrustCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
  5. Spercel v. Sterling Industries, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1972

18 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