Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Tschetter v. Berven
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided January 17, 2001No. NonePublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGilbertson, Justice
[¶ 31.] I respectfully dissent as to Issue One. I would hold there is a question of fact as to whether the investment made by the Tschetters constituted a security under SDCL 47-31A-401. I would reverse and remand for trial on this cause of action.
[¶ 32.] I initially part company with the Court on its treatment of the standard of review. Although the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Venerts, this Court would treat the issue as a question of law. Its authority for that position, S.E.C. v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 66 S.Ct. 1100, 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946) and Nutek Info. Sys.,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- John D. Williamson, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Gordon G. Tucker, Defendants-Appellees-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. DanielSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.