Legal Opinion · Dissent

Canton Concrete Products Corp. v. Alder

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1978No. 12285Published

1DissentWollman, Chief Justice

Although SDCL 15-26-2 does not by its terms require that the service of the notice of the filing of an order must be made by the attorney for the prevailing party, such a requirement has long been assumed by this court. In Labidee v. City of Pierre, 43 S.D. 31, 177 N.W. 499, this court said:

The object of the above statute [SDCL 15-26-2] is two-fold. It gives to a party the power to set running the time after which his adversary may not appeal. Braun v. Thuet, 42 S.D. 491, 174 N.W. .807. But it also assures each party that the statutory period of time within which he may appeal does not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Labidee v. City of PierreSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Braun v. Thuet Bros.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Western Electric Co. v. DormanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924

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

Powered by the Exa API