Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Behrens v. Nelson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 29, 1972No. File 10924Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBiegelmeier, Judge

I concur with the opinion insofar as it grants a new trial because of the apparent deliberate statement of plaintiff as to insurance.

I cannot agree with that part of the opinion which, conditioned on the evidence at the new trial, directs giving of the instruction *319set out and should state my reasons for this conclusion. No such instruction was presented in writing to the court as required in RCP 51(a), which provides:

"All requests for instructions shall be in writing and in duplicate, and shall be presented to the court on or before the time fixed for settling instructions. * * *

All requested…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. GreeneSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Heyl v. WaggonerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Griebel v. RudenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API