Legal Opinion

Moss v. Guttormson

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1996No. 19188, 19197PublishedCited by 133 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1] The issue presented is whether a salesperson adversely affected by product mislabeling can assert claims against the employer-distributor for deceit and for violating South Dakota’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. We conclude the claims are sustainable under both theories.

Facts

[¶ 2] In July, 1990 Scott Moss was hired as a South Dakota truck route salesperson for Arnie’s Meats and Seafood of Austin, Minnesota. Arnie’s used brochures to advertise and describe its products. One of the products it listed was sauger pike. Without telling its sales…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pickering v. PickeringSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
  2. US West Communications, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Carlock v. Pillsbury Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1989
  4. Taggart v. Ford Motor Credit Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Aschoff v. Mobil Oil Corp.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1977

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

3Cited by133 opinions

  1. Martinmaas v. EngelmannSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  2. South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund v. Casualty Reciprocal ExchangeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. In re Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2015
  4. Dahn v. TrownsellSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Discover Bank v. StanleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2008

128 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