Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jorgenson v. Dronebarger

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1966No. File 10238Published

1DissentRentto, Presiding Judge

It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law of the case, SDC 1960 Supp. 33.1317. This should be done in such manner that the controlling principles are made clear to *223the jury. The obligation of the jury is to accept the same and give • effect thereto. This duty, purpose, and obligation are not fulfilled, if the instructions are so deficient or unclear that the jury is required to speculate as to what the applicable law is.

It is probably true that one possessed of legal training could read the challenged instruction and discern therefrom that it should be considered in…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Barnhart v. AhlersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Smith v. ClarkSupreme Court of Virginia · 1948
  3. Mills v. Southwest Builders, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Roth v. JeldenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1962
  5. De Legge v. KarlsenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1958

4 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