A protest; a proclamation. | Lat. In the civil law. A solemn declaration, usually ...
District Court for the District of South Dakota Court Cases
St. Cloud v. United States (1988)Petitioner Richard Norman St. Cloud was indicted on counts of rape under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2031 and oral sodomy under 18 U.S.C. § 1153 and SDCL 22-22-1(1) and 22-22-2. St. Cloud plead guilty in this Court to involuntary sodomy and was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. St. Cloud has filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 a motion in which he argues that this Court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. Specifically, St. Cloud contends that because he is enrolled in a terminated Indian [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: 87-3023
United States v. Banks (1974)
William F. Clayton, U. S. Dist. Atty., D. S. D., and R. D. Hurd and David R. Gienapp, Asst. U. S. Attys., Sioux Falls, S. D., and Earl Kaplan, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR73-5034, CR73-5062, CR73-5035 and CR73-5063
Williams v. United States (1978)This suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act is brought to recover for the wrongful death of Robert Williams. Mr. Williams was shot and killed by Alonzo Bush on May 3, 1975, the day following Bush's release from the Fort Meade, South Dakota Veterans Administration Hospital. Under all of the circumstances, examined in detail below, we find that failure of the hospital to notify Meade County authorities of the discharge and release of Alonzo Bush was negligent and that such negligence was the [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CIV76-5017
Zemina v. Solem (1977)
Petitioner, Fred R. Zemina, seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging that his confinement under the custody of Herman Solem, Warden of the South Dakota Penitentiary, is based on a conviction in state court for first degree manslaughter that was the result of proceedings that deprived him of various fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights. Specifically, the petitioner alleges that the state proceedings were constitutionally and jurisdictionally invalid for the following reasons:
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. No. 76-4090
United States v. Red Feather (1975)The United States of America in its motion entitled Motion In Limine moves this Court to order counsel for the defendants to be restricted from making statements about, or introducing any evidence in any form, or in any other manner referring to (1) the loan and/or sale of military equipment to the Department of Justice used in its operations during the occupation in 1973 of Wounded Knee, South Dakota; (2) the presence of Department of Defense observers at Wounded Knee; and (3) any other [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR73-5176
White v. Califano (1977)
The allegations of Plaintiff and the procedural history of this case are set out in an earlier Memorandum Opinion of this Court. 420 F.Supp. 882. The parties have stipulated to the material facts and now seek a resolution of the controversy by means of a summary judgment.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CIV76-5031
United States v. Mound (1979)
Defendants were indicted on March 6, 1979, for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(c) and (f) and 18 U.S.C. § 1153. They were subsequently indicted again, on July 12, 1979, for first degree burglary arising from the same fact situation as the first indictment. The indictments were joined on August 2, 1979.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR. 79-30007-01, CR. 79-30018-01, CR. 79-30007-02, CR. 79-30018-02, CR. 79-30007-03, CR. 79-30018-03, CR. 79-30007-04 and 79-30018-04
The central issue in this case is whether the Yankton Sioux Reservation, created by the 1858 Treaty between the United States and the Yankton Sioux Tribe, was disestablished and returned to the public domain on August 15, 1894, when the Fifty-Third Congress ratified a December 31, 1892 Agreement with the Yankton Sioux for the sale of surplus lands. The Court holds that the 1894 Act did not disestablish the exterior boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation. The Court also holds, however, that [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CIV 94-4217
Jones v. GGNSC PIERRE LLC (2010)The Defendants in this case seek to compel arbitration under a contract provision specifying binding arbitration "in accordance with the National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure." The National Arbitration Forum ("NAF"), however, has entered into a Consent Judgment where it no longer arbitrates consumer disputes, such as the one at issue in this case. (Doc. 42 at Exhibit H). A split in authority exists over whether the unavailability of the NAF as a forum for consumer disputes renders [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CIV. 09-3011-RAL
Plaintiff, the United States of America, has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendation of April 28, 2000, recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress be granted. For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and grants Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR 00-400017
Shirt v. Hazeltine (2004)Plaintiffs contend that South Dakota's 2001 legislative redistricting plan dilutes Indian voting strength by packing District 27 with a 90 percent supermajority of Indians, in violation of ง 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This, plaintiffs contend, minimized the total number of districts in which Indians could select the candidate of their choice. Plaintiffs seek to create at least one additional single-member house district with a majority of Indians as a remedy. Defendants deny the [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. 01-3032-KES
Cody v. Hillard (1984)Plaintiff William Cody represents a class of persons who are now or who will be incarcerated in the South Dakota State Penitentiary at Sioux Falls, South Dakota or in the Women's Correctional Facility at Yankton, South Dakota. The plaintiff class challenges the constitutionality under the first, fifth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution of numerous conditions and practices of confinement primarily at the South Dakota State Penitentiary (SDSP) and [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. No. 80-4039
Cole v. Melvin (1977)
This lawsuit arose from a disagreement about the meaning of a contract for the sale of exotic cattle. Plaintiff Terry Cole is from Gainsborough, Saskatchewan; Defendant Warren Melvin lives in Hyde County, South Dakota. The parties are properly before this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. 75-3002
This wrongful death case was filed by Plaintiffs Marsha K. Shearer and Barbara J. Pierce, on behalf of the estates of their respective decedents, Bobby Shearer and Darrold Pierce. Plaintiffs are citizens of the state of South Dakota. The defendant is the Homestake Mining Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of California. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CIV79-5122
United States v. White Horse (2001)[¶ 2] White Horse, a Native American, is charged with sexually abusing his son on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. White Horse's attorney hired Dr. Janz to conduct a psychosexual evaluation of White Horse. This evaluation included a mental status examination and clinical interview of White Horse and the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest ("Abel Assessment"). Dr. Janz concluded that White Horse did not have a sexual interest in underage boys, and White Horse intended to offer this testimony [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR. 01-50002-01-KES
Culbert-Davis (C.D.) was an independent insurance agency which placed policies with St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (S.P.F.M.). On January 1, 1962, C.D. and S.P.F.M. entered into an agency incentive agreement that provided additional compensation to C.D. based on the relationship between the loss ratio of insurance placed by C.D. and the premium value of particular types of insurance. Certain types of policy premiums and losses were excluded from the incentive agreement [...]
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. No. 88-4059
United States v. Banks (1974)
William F. Clayton, U. S. Dist. Atty., for the District of South Dakota, and R. D. Hurd and David R. Gienapp, Asst. U. S. Attys., Sioux Falls, S. D. and Earl Kaplan, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., appeared in behalf of the plaintiff.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Cr. 73-5034, Cr. 73-5062, Cr. 73-5035 and Cr. 73-5063
United States v. Banks (1973)
William F. Clayton, Sioux Falls, S. D., R. D. Hurd, Sioux Falls, S. D., David R. Gienapp, Sioux Falls, S. D., Ronald W. Banks, Rapid City, S. D. and Carleton R. Hoy, Sioux Falls, S. D., appeared in behalf of the plaintiff.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: CR73-5034, etc
McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1983)
Plaintiff initiated this diversity action (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332) seeking damages because of her vaginal and cervical adenosis, allegedly caused by her exposure to diethystilbesterol (DES). She admittedly cannot identify the manufacturer of the DES she alleges caused her condition. Defendants have now filed a joint motion contending that each are entitled to summary judgment in light of plaintiff's inability to prove that any of them manufactured or sold the DES involved here.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. No. 80-3069
Moeller v. Bertrang (1992)
This case came on for trial to the Court. Upon the evidence received at trial, and on the law briefs filed, this memorandum is filed as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court.
Court: District Court for the District of South Dakota Docket: Civ. No. 90-1045