Legal Opinion

Mundhenke v. Holm

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 2010No. 25236PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1.] William Mundhenke (Mun-dhenke) filed a complaint seeking an accounting, dissociation, and dissolution of a business he claimed was operated as a partnership with Steve Holm (Holm). Holm denied the existence of a partnership and argued that Mundhenke’s complaint was a request for legal relief for which a right to a jury trial existed, rather than a request for equitable relief for which there is no right to a jury trial. The circuit court denied Holm’s request for a jury trial on the issue of whether a partnership existed. Holm appeals. We reverse and remand.

FAC…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  2. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. First W. Bank, Sturgis v. Livestock YardsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Thompson v. CoughlinOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Nizielski v. TvinnereimSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Granite Buick GMC, Inc. v. RaySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Suvada v. MullerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Hanna v. LandsmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Hedlund v. River Bluff Estates, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Gibson v. Gibson Family Ltd. PartnershipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016

5 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