Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Heer v. State
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided November 23, 1988No. 15791, 15795Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice
The majority opinion presents some good news and some bad news. The good news is very good. The law of prejudgment interest in South Dakota has taken a remarkable turn for the better. The law of prejudgment interest is now settled in that this court has unanimously determined that the trial court erred in refusing to grant prejudgment interest under SDCL 21-1-11 for damages sustained on Heers’ hogs. In other words, my dissent in South Dakota Building Authority v. Geiger-Berger Associates, 414 N.W.2d 15, 27 (S.D.1987) (Sabers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and joined by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Beka v. Lithium Corporation of AmericaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1958
- ICC Leasing Corp. v. Midwestern MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- South Dakota Building Authority v. Geiger-Berger Associates, P.C.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
- Amert v. Ziebarth Construction Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
- Meyer v. Dixon Bros., Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.