Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Malcolm v. Malcolm

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 3, 1985No. 14661Published

1ConcurrenceWuest, Acting Justice

I concur with the result in this ease, and agree that contempt cannot be used to collect the past due housing allowance because no order was entered, which has been violated. However, the court could, in my opinion, enter an order based on the January 12, 1982, supplemental agreement which, if later violated, could under appropriate circumstances be enforced by contempt.

I agree with the majority opinion regarding future allowances for attorney fees. A past decision indicates judges are possessed of special expertise in fixing attorney fees. See Scott v. Hetland, 51 S.D. 552, 215 N.W. 778…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Scott v. HetlandSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API