Legal Opinion
Green v. Siegel, Barnett & Schutz
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 1996No. NonePublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GILBERTSON, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Siegel, Barnett & Schütz (hereinafter Law Firm), a partnership engaged in the practice of law in South Dakota, appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment ruling that SDCL 15-2-13 and 15-2-14.2, providing the statutes of limitation for legal malpractice actions in this state, are unconstitutional in violation of Article VI, § 20 of the South Dakota Constitution. We reverse and remand with instruction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[¶ 2.] Paul Green and Elizabeth Sammis, plaintiffs and appellees, are the children of Mayme Green and co-executors of her estate. Mayme died June…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Parker v. LevySupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Munn v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. BurnsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Ruther v. KaiserOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- Stratmeyer v. StratmeyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Wegleitner v. SattlerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Cromwell v. Rapid City Police DepartmentSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.