Affiliations

• Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

  Cites National Park Bank v. . Koehler — Hat. Park Bank v. KoeKler, 137 App. Div. 785, reversed.

• Defender v. CITY OF McLAUGHLIN, SOUTH DAKOTA

  District Court, D. South Dakota · 1964-04-10 · cited 4×

  This case involves a motion for summary judgment by the City of McLaughlin in a lawsuit brought by a North Dakota resident against the City and its police officer. The plaintiff alleged that the officer, acting in his official capacity while attempting to arrest the plaintiff for a misdemeanor, negligently and intentionally shot him in the back, causing permanent injuries, and that the City was negligent in hiring the officer and maintained a nuisance. The City argued it was protected by governmental immunity for torts arising from the performance of police functions, a rule established in South Dakota case law since 1893 and reaffirmed in later decisions, and that its limited liability insurance did not waive that immunity. The court granted the motion, holding that municipalities are not liable for the negligence of officers carrying out governmental duties such as law enforcement, and that labeling the conduct as a nuisance or relying on insurance did not overcome the immunity doctrine absent legislative change.

  torts & liabilitycriminal law

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,694 words)

• Huron Clinic Foundation v. United States

  District Court, D. South Dakota · 1962-12-21 · cited 1×

  The case Huron Clinic Foundation v. United States concerned a nonprofit corporation's lawsuit to recover income taxes assessed for 1954 through 1956 after the IRS revoked its prior tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The foundation, which owned a building leased to an associated medical clinic under a rent formula based on the clinic's gross receipts, argued that its articles of incorporation established it as organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes with no private inurement of earnings. The court analyzed the stipulated facts on the organization's operations, rent payments, salaries, charitable contributions, and surplus accumulation to determine compliance with the requirements of exclusive charitable operation and absence of private benefit, while considering provisions on prohibited transactions and unrelated business income.

  taxeshealthcarebusiness & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (5,224 words)

• De Marrias v. State of South Dakota

  District Court, D. South Dakota · 1962-07-27 · cited 12×

  The case involved a habeas corpus petition by an enrolled member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Indian Tribe challenging the State of South Dakota's jurisdiction to prosecute him for third-degree burglary committed on non-Indian patented land inside the original exterior boundaries of the Lake Traverse Reservation. The court denied the writ, holding that the state courts had jurisdiction. The core reasoning rested on the 1889 Agreement and related federal statutes, which ceded and restored the unallotted lands to the public domain, removing them from Indian country status under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1151 and 1153; specific legislation for this reservation, including South Dakota's 1901 law and the 1903 federal act, confirmed state authority over the opened lands and distinguished the case from general precedents on reservation boundaries.

  criminal lawfederal power

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (1,957 words)

• Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland

  District Court, D. South Dakota · 1961-01-11 · cited 6×

  The case concerned a claim by the receiver for Central Standard Insurance Company against Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland under an Insurance Companies Blanket Bond to recover $50,000 for losses caused by dishonest acts of the company's employees between 1954 and 1955. The defendant moved to dismiss, contending that the plaintiff's settlements with the employees and other parties in a related New York action, executed via releases without the defendant's consent, discharged the bond obligation and any subrogation rights. The plaintiff countered that the bond created an absolute indemnity obligation contingent only on proof of loss, or alternatively that the settlements were mere covenants not to sue that did not release the surety. The court made findings of fact regarding the employee status, the extent of losses, the tender of defense, the settlement amounts and terms, and the lack of defendant consent, while noting the parties' shift in characterizing the bond as either a surety agreement or an insurance contract.

  business & regulatory

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (11,501 words)