S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-56

Section 15-6-56(c) precludes summary judgment adopting a foreign divorce decree when genuine issues of material fact remain about portions of the decree.

Bahr v. Bahr · filed 1970-10-21(c)

In our opinion the trial court erred when it granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. We are satisfied the record before the trial court showed there were genuine issues of material facts to be decided on portions of the foreign decree of divorce. SDCL 15-6-56(c). These matters should have been heard and determined before the foreign decree was adopted and made effective as a decree of the South Dakota court.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence leaves a genuine issue of fact, particularly if the motion rests entirely on an affidavit from an alleged co-conspirator who received immunity.

Schmidt v. Pine Lawn Memorial Park, Inc. · filed 1975-03-26(c)

This complicated set of facts should not be the subject of summary judgment, particularly where the summary judgment is based entirely on the affidavit of an alleged co-conspirator who has been given immunity from suit by Pine Lawn previous to making his statement.

Summary judgment under § 15-6-56(c) cannot be granted when a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 1975-04-25(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if * * * there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” There is no doubt that the fact involved is material; the guest statute makes willful and wanton misconduct necessary to any recovery here. We conclude, however, that there is a genuine issue concerning this fact and that the trial court could not grant judgment as a matter of law when such fact is in dispute.

Section 15-6-56 permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact remains; disputed facts about a cotenant’s improvements require a trial before a partition sale.

Kruger v. Kruger · filed 1976-03-25

SDCL 15-6-56 is the statutory provision for summary judgment in this jurisdiction. Summary judgment presupposes there is no genuine contested issue of fact. ... We are of the opinion that there exist, in this case, issues of material fact that should be resolved by a trial.

Section 15-6-56 bars summary judgment when the evidence, viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, leaves a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Carsten v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. · filed 1976-12-16

We are unable to say that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a specific showing of malice to raise a genuine issue of material fact when malice is needed to defeat a qualified privilege.

Uken v. Sloat · filed 1980-09-17(e)

However, a specific showing of malice is required for purposes of raising a genuine issue of material fact, and this burden was not met by the complaint, deposition, or affidavit.

Summary judgment is improper when the record raises a genuine issue of fact about malice, including an accused letter writer’s denial of knowledge of the reported crime if authorship is established.

Fendrich v. Lauck · filed 1981-07-01(c)

There remains the question whether appellants made an adequate showing to raise a genuine issue of fact on the question of malice. See Uken v. Sloat, 296 N.W.2d 540 (S.D.1980); Wollman v. Graff, 287 N.W.2d 104 (S.D.1980). We hold that they did. Dorothy Lauck's denial of any knowledge of the fact of the alleged crime would itself be evidence of malice if it is later established that she authored the letter, inasmuch as she would hardly be in a position at trial to claim that she had a good faith belief that appellants were involved in the incident. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court should not have entered summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hurney v. Locke · filed 1981-07-29(c)

Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... Summary judgment was improper since the genuine issue of fact existed concerning the scope of appellees’ duty.

Summary judgment is improper when a material issue of good faith in negotiating an agreement remains a factual question.

Richardson v. Afdahl · filed 1981-12-16(c)

The issue of good faith is a factual question not properly resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is improper when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, raises a genuine issue of material fact.

Equilease Corp. v. Brech · filed 1982-04-21

Likewise in the instant case, considering appellant’s evidence in the light most favorable to him, we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of misrepresentation.

Summary judgment is proper when the record raises no genuine issue of material fact.

VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products · filed 1983-06-15

As set forth in Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857 (S.D.1983), our standard of review for summary judgments is drawn from SDCL 15-6-56 and Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968). We have examined the record herein to ascertain if a genuine issue of material fact has been raised, and our conclusion is in the negative.

Summary judgment under subsection (c) is improper when a genuine dispute of material fact remains over whether a contract contingency was waived.

Farmers Feed & Seed, Inc. v. Magnum Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1984-02-29(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... The evidence reveals genuine issues of material fact which make this case an improper subject for summary judgment.

Section 15-6-56 does not permit summary judgment when a genuine question of material fact remains about when final payment under a performance bond became due.

Salem School District 43-3 v. Puetz Construction, Inc. · filed 1984-08-08

In light of these principles and SDCL 15-6-56 (summary judgment) the summary judgment in favor of Bondsman must also be vacated. When the final payment was or is due is a genuine question of material fact for trial.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when specific facts show a genuine issue of material fact for trial, with reasonable doubts about such an issue resolved against the movant.

Laber v. Koch · filed 1986-03-12(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment shall be rendered "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." ... The nonmoving party must present specific facts which demonstrate a genuine, material issue for trial. ... We do not believe Laber's claim of negligence is a sham, frivolous, or so unsubstantial that it is obvious a trial on the merits would be futile. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for trial.

Cross motions for summary judgment do not eliminate the need to determine whether genuine issues of material fact exist.

First Security Bank, Morristown v. Skjoldal · filed 1976-01-22

Our law on summary judgment is well set out in SDCL 15-6-56 and this court has presented guidelines on the subject in Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company, 1968, 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19. ... We also note that the making of cross motions for summary judgment does not remove from consideration the primary question of whether there are any genuine issues of material fact.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment is proper as a matter of law.

Weaver v. Boortz · filed 1981-02-11(c)

After receiving briefs, affidavits, and depositions from both parties, the trial court determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... The singular issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. We hold that it did not. The granting of summary judgment was proper as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Myers v. Lennox Co-Op. Ass'n · filed 1981-07-08(c)

A motion for summary judgment can be granted only if there is no genuine issue with regard to any material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Under § 15-6-56, summary judgment is appropriate when admissible evidence resolves the only material factual dispute and leaves only questions of law.

Moore v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 1982-08-25

We believe Greer’s affidavit with attached summaries was admissible as a business record and that it resolved the only question of material fact (sufficient notice), thus advancing the trial court to questions of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bayer v. Burke · filed 1983-09-21(c)

Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... As such, there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) warrants summary judgment when no material factual issue is disputed and the remaining issue is a question of law.

Wegner Auto Co., Inc. v. Ballard · filed 1984-08-15(c)

As there were no material factual issues in dispute, summary judgment was warranted.

Summary judgment is proper when the submitted record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. McElvain · filed 1985-02-13(a)

It is well established that summary judgment shall be granted where the pleadings, depositions, admissions on file, exhibits presented, and supporting affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Barger v. Cox · filed 1985-07-31(c)

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Summary judgment is proper when no material factual issue remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Morrell Employees Federal Credit Union v. Mehlhaff · filed 1985-11-06(c)

Summary judgment is properly awarded if there is no germane issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

American Indian Agricultural Credit Consortium, Inc. v. Fort Pierre Livestock, Inc. · filed 1985-12-31(c)

Under SDCL 15-6-56(c), summary judgment is properly awarded "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." ... We believe that summary judgment was proper inasmuch as there were no genuine issues of material fact, namely, whether the cattle in question were secured by the security agreement and financing statement.

Under § 15-6-56(c), a factual dispute does not preclude summary judgment when the disputed fact is immaterial to the claim.

Larsen v. State · filed 1976-02-13(c)

Thus, in accordance with SDCL 15-6-56(c) there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. In their brief the plaintiffs contend that the question of whether or not the closing of the alley was within the contemplation of the Right of Way Agreement is disputed and thus the motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Granted, this fact is disputed; however, it is immaterial in the inverse condemnation action.

Summary judgment under § 15-6-56 is improper when the facts surrounding an accident are disputed.

Dehn v. Prouty · filed 1982-07-07

Under the principles laid down in Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company, 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968), and the admittedly disputed facts surrounding this accident, we hold that this matter was not a proper case for summary judgment disposition. See SDCL 15-6-56.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when an absolute privilege defense leaves no genuine issue of fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hughes v. O'CONNOR · filed 1981-12-16(c)

Because no genuine issue of fact remained appellee was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when undisputed conduct establishes mutual rescission of a contract as a matter of law.

Preheim v. Ortman · filed 1983-03-09(c)

Our standard of review for summary judgment is drawn from Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968) and SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... It is undisputed that appellants’ attorney asked for and received a quitclaim deed from appellees in favor of appellants’ purchaser. ... Thus, summary judgment was properly granted by the trial court as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56 authorizes summary judgment only when no material factual issue exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Caneva v. Miners and Merchants Bank · filed 1983-06-22

Summary judgment proceedings are not a substitute for trial when the claims asserted are not a sham or frivolous. The remedy is authorized only when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no issues of material fact.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when the showing opposing the motion leaves no genuine issue of fact on an issue necessary to the claim.

Rankin v. Iversen · filed 1983-09-07(c)

We agree with the trial court that on the basis of the showing made in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, there exists no genuine issue of fact on the question of ouster.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when the record contains no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Kane v. Schnitzler · filed 1984-11-07(c)

Because the record is devoid of ... any evidence that appellants were a party to any purchase agreement, there was no “genuine issue as to any material fact.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; issues on which reasonable minds could differ must go to the jury.

Mitchell v. Ankney · filed 1986-11-19(c)

A trial court may grant summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c). "A genuine issue of fact exists where, on the basis of facts in the record, reasonable minds could differ on whether the defendant's conduct measures up to the required standard." Nemec v. Deering, 350 N.W.2d 53 (S.D.1984). In this case, reasonable minds could reach different conclusions on the issues, and therefore summary judgment was improperly granted.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

F & M AGENCY v. Dornbush · filed 1987-03-11(c)

Summary judgment is properly granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Summary judgment is improper when an employer’s alleged promise of a future position could establish a definite employment contract if proved at trial.

Larson v. Kreiser's, Inc. · filed 1988-08-17(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... If these allegations were established at trial, it would not be unreasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that the parties entered into a definite employment contract. Therefore, like the court in ARA Services, we hold that plaintiff should have the opportunity to prove at trial the existence of a contract to employ plaintiff as president of Kreiser's, Inc.

Summary judgment must be denied when reasonable people could reach different conclusions from the evidence on a material issue.

Dahl v. Sittner · filed 1988-09-14(c)

If reasonable persons, upon examining the evidence, might reach different conclusions, a motion for summary judgment should be denied and the case tried on the merits.

Section 15-6-56(c) bars summary judgment when the movant has not shown the absence of a genuine factual dispute over an essential element of its defense.

Didier v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a New York Corporation · filed 1989-02-16(c)

Thus, because Didier’s ability to avoid the risk is an essential element of appellee’s defense, it had the burden of establishing the facts relevant to this element in its summary judgment motion. Appellee, however, did not establish that there was no genuine issue of fact on this specific point.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when, even viewing the nonmoving party’s evidence favorably, that evidence cannot establish a claim as a matter of law.

Van Zee v. Witzke · filed 1989-08-30(c)

Viewing the claimed statements as detailed by Van Zee in a light most favorable to her, we agree that they fail the clear proof of an express contract upon which to ground liability.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Baatz v. Arrow Bar · filed 1990-02-28(c)

A trial court may grant summary judgment only when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Under § 15-6-56(c), a genuine issue of material fact about whether a corporate officer disclosed his agency to a creditor precludes summary judgment on the officer’s personal liability.

Robbins & Stearns Lumber Co. v. Thatcher · filed 1990-03-28(c)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. ... Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact which precludes summary judgment.

Under § 15-6-56(c), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Musch v. H-D Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 1990-08-15(c)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.

Under subsection (c), summary judgment is proper when undisputed facts leave no genuine issue of material fact and establish that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

Anderson v. Production Credit Ass'n · filed 1992-04-01(c)

This undisputed knowledge on the part of Andersons clearly foreclosed the filing of this action in 1990 under the statute of limitations, thus the trial court's conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact existed, is affirmed.

Summary judgment is improper when a genuine issue of material fact remains about whether a plaintiff knew or should have known of facts underlying a res judicata defense.

Du-Al Manufacturing Co. v. Sioux Falls Construction Co. · filed 1992-07-01(c)

We therefore hold it was improper for the trial court to grant summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact exists as to when Du-Al knew or should have known about the construction wall defects, We reverse and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary judgment is improper when a genuine issue of material fact remains, including whether a conveyance was fraudulent.

Piner v. Jensen · filed 1994-07-13(c)

Because genuine issues of material fact exist, the circuit court erred in granting the Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Under § 15-6-56(c), summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the opposing party must identify specific facts showing a genuine material issue for trial.

Feld v. First National Bank in Sioux Falls · filed 1994-07-20(c)

In reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the non-moving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The non-moving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

Summary judgment must be reversed when genuine factual disputes remain on the elements of a claim.

Bollinger v. Eldredge · filed 1994-08-17(e)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(e), we must determine whether the moving-party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. ... Since these factual questions are present, we reverse the partial summary judgment and remand to the trial court.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment in a negligence case when the nonmoving party fails to identify facts supporting the negligence claims.

Satterlee v. Johnson · filed 1995-01-11(c)

A review of the record shows that summary judgment was proper in this negligence case, because Satterlee himself failed to set forth any set of facts upon which his negligence claims could rest.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a material fact, such as a public entity’s knowledge of a dangerous condition, remains genuinely disputed.

Tipton v. Town of Tabor · filed 1995-10-18(c)

Summary judgment shall be granted "... if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... Because the trial court focused its attention on statutory language alone, summary judgment in favor of Town and County was improvidently granted. For example, whether Town or County had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition created by the presence of the wolf hybrids is a subject of sharp dispute.

Summary judgment is improper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, a material issue of fact remains.

Kahler, Inc. v. Weiss · filed 1995-11-01(c)

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the nonmovant, a material issue of fact exists on whether Kahler substantially performed under the exclusive listing agreement. Therefore, summary judgment was improper on this issue.

Summary judgment is inappropriate when conflicting evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact about whether a plaintiff had a reasonable alternative to encountering a risk.

MacK v. Kranz Farms, Inc. · filed 1996-05-29(c)

With this conflict in the record, there clearly is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable alternative existed. Therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Section 15-6-56(c) precludes summary judgment when conflicting evidence about a contract and the parties’ intent creates a genuine issue of material fact.

Ford v. Moore · filed 1996-09-04(c)

Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... Conflicting evidence on the intent of the contracting parties, coupled with tribal resolutions which are unclear about which contracts they pertain to, and subsequent contractual modifications, all create genuine issues of material fact, precluding summary judgment.

Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact remain about whether an insurer had a reasonable basis for denying a claim.

Walz v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. · filed 1996-11-20(c)

We find that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Insurer’s reasonable basis in denying Walz’ claim and, therefore, that summary judgment was improperly granted.

A factual dispute does not preclude summary judgment under § 15-6-56(e) if the disputed fact would not affect the outcome under the governing substantive law.

Weiss v. Van Norman · filed 1997-04-16(e)

Although this is a disputed fact, it is not a genuine issue of material fact if Van Norman’s alleged actions or omissions were not the proximate cause of Weiss’ alleged damages.

Summary judgment is proper when no material fact is genuinely disputed and the undisputed facts support judgment as a matter of law.

Julson v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1997-04-16(c)

In other words, there is a sound basis which supports the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment, because the parties agree that Federated paid Julsons’ resulting claims to the full policy limits, and that Federated’s settlement with the third-party tort-feasors did not prevent Julsons from continuing their action against the third-party tortfeasors seeking to recover their total loss.

Summary judgment is improper when the record raises a genuine issue of material fact about whether a party retained control over an independent contractor’s work.

Clausen v. Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc. · filed 1999-05-26(c)

Based on the evidence contained in the record, it is clear that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether AGI retained any control over Clausen as to remove it from the general rule of employer nonliability.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits a court to resolve a factual question by summary judgment when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the claim fails as a matter of law.

Daktronics, Inc. v. McAfee · filed 1999-08-18(c)

However, a court may determine a question of fact by summary judgment if it appears to involve no genuine issues of material fact and the claim fails as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is improper when genuine disputes remain over whether alleged misconduct caused the claimed damages.

Dakota Cheese · filed 1999-11-23(c)

Whether or not Smith and Taylor intentionally concealed the original New Zealand invoices from Dee and the court and caused the accumulation of contempt fines, at least in part, are genuine issues of material fact, inappropriate for summary judgment.

Summary judgment may resolve marital status when the evidence leaves no genuine issue of fact about the relationship.

Accounts Management, Inc. v. Litchfield · filed 1998-03-11(c)

The real question here is whether there was any genuine issue of fact about the parties’ relationship. ... No genuine issue of fact exists. Fredrick and Claudia were husband and wife.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, with the evidence viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party.

Bad Wound v. Lakota Community Homes, Inc. · filed 1998-03-11(c)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party.

Summary judgment under § 15-6-56(c) must be reversed when a genuine issue of material fact exists as to breach of contract.

Rumpza v. Donalar Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1998-07-15(c)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we determine whether the moving party has demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. ... A question of material fact exists as to a breach of contract by Stockholm. As such, we reverse and remand for trial.

Speculation does not create a genuine issue of material fact when direct affidavit evidence establishes the fact.

Sorrels v. Queen of Peace Hospital · filed 1999-10-06(c)

Dr. Sorrels' innuendo cannot generate a genuine issue of material fact in the face of the nurse's testimony in her affidavit that Dr. Sorrels ordered the drug.

Summary judgment on a statute of limitations defense is improper when a genuine issue of material fact remains about when the plaintiff had notice of the claim.

Wissink v. Van De Stroet · filed 1999-07-21(c)

Clearly, this disputed time of notice is sufficient to establish that genuine issues of material fact still exist regarding the date of accrual. As such, the question of the applicability of the statute of limitations should have been presented to a jury.

Conflicting expert testimony on a material issue creates a genuine issue of fact that precludes summary judgment and must be resolved by the factfinder.

Jorgenson v. Vener · filed 2000-07-05(c)

These disputes of fact cannot be properly disposed via summary judgment and must be resolved by the factfinder. Thus, summary judgment was improper, and the trial court's decision must be reversed.

Under subsection (c), summary judgment requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Dahl v. Combined Insurance Co. · filed 2001-01-17(c)

In reviewing a grant or a denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.

Summary judgment must be denied when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party presents genuine issues of material fact.

Wilson v. Lewno · filed 2001-03-21(c)

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Wilson yields genuine issues of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment for Dakota on negligent entrustment of its motor vehicle.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment on assumption of the risk when conflicting evidence leaves a jury question about whether the plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk.

Pettry v. Rapid City Area School District · filed 2001-07-03(c)

Given the conflicting arguments, and evidence as to whether Pettry had a reasonable alternative available to her, we hold that the issue of whether she voluntarily accepted the risk in this case presented a jury question.

Summary judgment is improper when a genuine issue of material fact remains, including whether an officer acted negligently.

Cromwell v. Rapid City Police Department · filed 2001-07-25(c)

There remain genuine issues of material fact including the question of whether Officer Lang’s actions were negligent.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains for a jury to decide.

Kurth v. Aerial Blades, Inc. · filed 2001-09-26(c)

Therefore, whether treble damages is applicable to Aerial Blades presents a genuine issue of material fact. This is a question for the jury to decide, not for the court to decide as a matter of law. The trial court erred in granting partial summary judgment against Aerial Blades.

On summary judgment, courts must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and leave disputed material facts for the fact finder.

Bozied v. City of Brookings · filed 2001-12-26(c)

For summary judgment purposes, we must view the facts in a light favorable to the nonmoving party. SDCL 15-6-56(c). Under the totality of circumstances, we conclude that the fact finder must decide whether such events were not reasonably foreseeable.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue exists as to material facts or the inferences drawn from them.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Engelmann · filed 2002-01-16(c)

Summary judgment can be granted only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." SDCL 15-6-56(c). Not only must the facts be not in issue, but also there must be no genuine issue on the inferences to be drawn from those facts.

Summary judgment is available only when no genuine issue of material fact exists, including any genuine issue about inferences drawn from the facts.

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance v. Englemann · filed 2002-01-16(c)

Summary judgment can be granted only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact."

Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact remain.

Fisher v. Kahler · filed 2002-02-27

If there are genuine issues of material fact, then summary judgment is improper. ... These are disputed questions of material fact. Because they are unresolved, the summary judgment cannot stand.

Summary judgment is precluded when a material factual dispute concerns why a contractual condition precedent failed.

Johnson v. Coss · filed 2003-07-23(c)

Summary judgment is precluded because there are material issues of disputed fact relating to the cause of the failure to consummate the agreement.

Summary judgment is improper when evidence viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party permits reasonable minds to differ on a material fact.

Balster v. Wipf · filed 2003-11-25(e)

Wipfs evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, was sufficient to get past summary judgment and to proceed with his claims for breach of contract.

Summary judgment on a statute of limitations defense is improper when a material factual dispute remains about when the cause of action accrued.

Huron Center v. Carlson and Durrant Group v. Zurbrigen Industries · filed 2002-08-14(c)

Conversely, Defendants have not carried their burden of demonstrating that Huron Center’s action is time-barred because the question of an accrual date remains disputed.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment on an implied contract claim when reasonable minds could not differ about the facts needed to establish the contract.

Van De Walle & Associates, L.L.C. v. Buseman · filed 2003-06-11(c)

[although ... whether particular conduct is sufficient to support a finding that an implied contract exists is generally submitted to a trier of fact, the question may be resolved by summary judgment if reasonable minds could not differ.

Section 15-6-56(c) allows summary judgment on an implied contract claim when reasonable minds could not differ and no genuine issue of material fact remains.

VAN DE WALLE & ASSOC. v. Buseman · filed 2003-06-11(c)

The record in this case supports the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Reasonable minds could not believe that Van De Walle agreed to be paid only in the event that HUD guaranteed the financing. Nor could reasonable minds believe that Buseman received no benefit from the services Van De Walle provided. Because there are no genuine issues of material fact, the trial court is affirmed.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when the evidence raises a genuine factual dispute about alleged fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

Railsback v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. · filed 2004-05-12(c)

These factual assertions merely emphasize the error in the trial court’s determination that summary judgment was appropriate. There are questions of material fact whether the claims adjusters’ knowledge of Railsback’s mistaken belief and manipulation of that belief for the company’s benefit amounted to fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Section 15-6-56 does not permit summary judgment when a genuine issue of material fact remains about malice.

Pawlovich v. Linke · filed 2004-10-06(e)

On this record, we cannot affirm summary judgment based upon the common interest privilege because there exists a genuine issue of material fact concerning malice.

Summary judgment is improper when the nonmoving party presents facts from which a jury could find excessive force.

Thornton v. City of Rapid City · filed 2005-01-26(c)

However, where the nonmoving party in a summary judgment motion presents facts from which a trier of fact could find excessive conduct on the part of the officer, summary judgment would be error. Here, the factual scenario taken, in the light most favorable to Yellow Boy raises an issue of material fact as to whether the force used was greater than necessary. Thus, it was not error for the trial court to deny summary judgment on the assault and battery claim.

Summary judgment cannot be affirmed when a genuine issue of material fact remains about whether an assignment was valid.

Northstream Investments, Inc. v. 1804 Country Store Co. · filed 2005-05-18(c)

As stated above, for this Court to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact surrounding the question of whether or not a valid assignment was made between Security Bank and Northstream.

Under § 15-6-56(c), undisputed contradictions in the evidence and competing inferences about probable cause do not create a genuine issue of material fact when probable cause can be decided by the court from the known facts.

Heib v. Lehrkamp · filed 2005-09-21(c)

However, those contradictions are not genuine issues of material fact because they are undisputed. And the fact that contradictory inferences can be drawn from these facts does not create a genuine issue of material fact because the question whether probable cause existed is a mixed question of law and fact for the court.

The party moving for summary judgment must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists; a disputed issue about breach of duty requires a jury trial.

Casillas v. Schubauer · filed 2006-04-26(c)

It was Schubauer’s burden to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he breached his duty to Casillas and Stickelman. He has failed to meet his burden. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a jury trial.

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

A-G-E Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Department of Transportation · filed 2006-07-19(c)

As a threshold matter per the provisions of SDCL 15-6-56(c), summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact remain, and doubts about their existence are resolved against the moving party.

Citibank (South Dakota), NA v. Schmidt · filed 2008-01-02(c)

Despite Schmidt’s unskilled advocacy, there appears to be genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. See SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Summary judgment is improper when competing evidence creates a genuine dispute of material fact about contract performance and damages.

Donald Bucklin Construction v. McCormick Construction Co. · filed 2013-07-31(c)

After reviewing the record, we find that the trial court erred when it determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact.

Summary judgment is improper when deciding the motion requires the court to resolve a material factual dispute over the actual language of a contract.

Quinn v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2014-03-12(c)

Because this process required the circuit court to resolve the material factual dispute as to the actual language used by the parties, the issue was not suitable for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In Re the Trust Fund Created Under the Terms of the Last Will & Testament of Baumgart · filed 2015-07-22(c)

“Summary judgment is proper where ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Titus v. Chapman, 2004 S.D. 106, ¶ 13, 687 N.W.2d 918, 923 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(c)). ... The court did not err by determining that no genuine issue of material fact existed on this issue.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when the facts material to a disputed classification are undisputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hofer v. Redstone Feeders, LLC · filed 2015-10-01(c)

There is no basis, however, for reversing a summary judgment if there are no disputes regarding the facts. Whether an employee is an agricultural laborer may be a fact question, but the facts that determine his status are not in dispute in this case.

Mere speculation and general assertions, without concrete evidence, do not establish a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

North Star Mutual Insurance v. Korzan · filed 2015-12-16(c)

Mere speculation and general assertions, without some concrete evidence, are not enough to avoid summary judgment.

A factual dispute does not defeat summary judgment unless it is material to the claims.

Gul v. Center for Family Medicine · filed 2009-02-25(c)

However, this factual dispute is not material to Dr. Gul's claims and as a consequence does not defeat summary judgment.

Summary judgment is proper when the record, viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party, provides no support for the conduct alleged in its claims.

Veblen District v. Multi-Community Cooperative Dairy · filed 2012-04-11(c)

Based on the entire record, and even examining the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there is no support that Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing. Defendants have met their burden to achieve summary judgment.

Disputed material facts affecting whether an insurance policy exclusion or its exception applies preclude summary judgment.

Western National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gateway Building Systems, Inc. · filed 2016-11-30

The circuit court resolved disputed material facts when it granted summary judgment in favor of Western National Mutual Insurance Company. Those disputed material facts precluded summary judgment in this declaratory action.

Summary judgment is premature when disputed material facts affect whether an insurance policy exclusion applies.

Western Nat. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Gateway Bldg. Sys. · filed 2016-11-30

The circuit court resolved disputed material facts when it granted summary judgment in favor of Western National Mutual Insurance Company. Those disputed material facts precluded summary judgment in this declaratory action.

Summary judgment is inappropriate when material questions of fact concerning fraud and reliance remain.

Oxton v. Rudland · filed 2017-06-14(c)

Questions of fact on material issues such as fraud are not appropriate for summary judgment.

A factual dispute does not prevent summary judgment under § 15-6-56(c) when the disputed fact is immaterial to the issue being decided.

Owners Insurance Co. v. Tibke Construction, Inc. · filed 2017-08-23(c)

The circuit court erred by denying Tibke’s motion for summary judgment on the question whether the Browns’ claims are covered by the CGL policy. While factual questions regarding the foreseeability of the expansive soils under the house may have been relevant to whether Tibke breached a duty to the Browns in the underlying suit, they are not relevant to the existence of coverage under the policy.

A genuine dispute of material fact about an essential element precludes summary judgment.

Beals v. Autotrac, Inc. · filed 2017-11-21(c)

Considered in a light most favorable to Beals, these factual assertions raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Beals had a “weakness of mind” that Parsons exploited. The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on Beals’s undue-influence claim.

Section 15-6-56(c) precludes summary judgment on an assumption-of-risk defense when material facts about the plaintiff’s knowledge and appreciation of the risk remain disputed.

Schott v. S.D. Wheat Growers · filed 2017-12-27(c)

Because there are disputed issues of fact concerning these questions, summary judgment should not have been granted.

Summary judgment is improper when the record raises a genuine issue of material fact about whether a release bars a claim.

Schaefer v. Sioux Spine & Sport, Prof. LLC · filed 2018-01-10(c)

A review of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,” SDCL 15-6-56(c), indicates there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Schaefer’s sternal fracture was a known injury at the time she signed the release.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires denial of summary judgment when the record presents genuine disputes of material fact about testamentary intent and competence.

Estate of Ducheneaux v. Ducheneaux (In Re Estate of Ducheneaux) · filed 2018-03-14(c)

For example, Wayne’s August 23, 2011 writing references five quarters of land when Wayne purportedly transferred three to Ducheneaux just weeks before. Given these contested issues, the circuit court did not err in denying Ducheneaux’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment is improper when the evidence viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor gives a jury a reasonable basis to find causation.

Garrido v. Team Auto Sales, Inc. · filed 2018-05-23(c)

Taken in the light most favorable to Appellants, there is sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to conclude that the defective exhaust system probably caused Appellants’ carbon monoxide exposure. The circuit court therefore erred in granting TAS’s motion for summary judgment on causation.

Summary judgment is improper when disputed evidence about capacity supports a reasonable inference in favor of the nonmoving party.

Johnson v. Markve · filed 2022-09-21(c)

Both standards require fact-intensive inquiries regarding Susan’s cognition that are very much disputed by the parties and the evidence contained in the record. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Estate, supports the reasonable inference that Susan lacked the capacity to contract and to devise her property.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires courts to view facts in the nonmoving party’s favor and deny summary judgment when material facts remain in dispute.

Nelson v. Estate of Campbell · filed 2023-03-15(c)

When viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Nelson, as is required in summary judgment proceedings, we conclude that the circuit court erred by determining that there were no material facts in dispute regarding this claim.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment on fact-intensive questions when the material facts are undisputed.

S.D. Dep't of Transportation v. Legacy Land Co. · filed 2023-11-15(c)

Even inquiries which are factual in nature are amenable to summary judgment where the material facts—the ones that matter to the outcome—are undisputed.

Summary judgment may resolve whether an employee substantially deviated from a work purpose when no genuine issue of material fact bears on that question.

Barr v. Cole · filed 2023-11-29(c)

There are no genuine issues of material fact related to this question and the court properly resolved the question of whether Hughes had substantially deviated from his work purpose as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56 does not permit a court to weigh conflicting evidence on a material fact when deciding summary judgment.

Heumiller v. Hansen · filed 2020-10-14

By crediting Shirley’s testimony over Mark’s, the circuit court impermissibly weighed the evidence on a material issue—whether Cletus and Shirley did not intend to create an easement.

Section 15-6-56(c) precludes summary judgment when material facts concerning an implied contract claim remain disputed.

Scotlynn Transport, LLC v. Plains Towing & Recovery, LLC · filed 2024-04-24(c)

The circuit court erred when it granted summary judgment because there are disputed material facts relating to Scotlynn’s implied contract theory.

On summary judgment, the court must refrain from finding disputed facts and view factual disputes in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Langbehn v. Langbehn · filed 2025-02-26(c)

In its decision granting Mary’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court deviated from our well-settled rules that require it to refrain from fact- finding and, instead, consider all factual disputes in the light most favorable to the non-moving party—here, Michael.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not permit summary judgment when a disputed fact could affect the outcome of the case.

Robinson v. Mitchell · filed 2012-01-04(c)

Thus, the factual question of Ewalt’s residence is material because it would affect the outcome of the litigation. Therefore, because a material question of fact remains, the circuit court’s granting of summary judgment in this ... case was improper.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; general allegations and denials are insufficient.

Hughes-Johnson Co. v. Dakota Midland Hospital · filed 1972-03-14(e)

However, SDCL 15-6-56(e) requires the opposing party to be diligent in resisting a motion for summary judgment, and mere general allegations and denials which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent the issuance of a judgment.

Under subsection (e), the party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Olesen v. Snyder · filed 1976-12-31(e)

... once a motion for summary judgment is made and supported (as by the depositions here), the nonmoving party has the burden of showing specifically that there is a genuine issue.

Section 15-6-56(e) does not require a party opposing summary judgment to identify specific facts about a fire’s cause until the movant shows that the fire was caused by something other than the movant’s negligence.

Hunt v. Briggs · filed 1978-06-01(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) does not require the appellants to show cause of the fire by specific facts until such time as the respondents have shown by depositions, affidavits, etc., that the fire was caused by something other than their negligence.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact instead of relying on general allegations or denials.

Brown County Cooperative Ass'n v. Rasmussen-King Cattle Co. · filed 1980-12-30(e)

When opposing a motion for summary judgment, a party may not rely on the general allegations and denials of his answer and affidavits, but must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact.

A verified complaint may oppose summary judgment under § 15-6-56(e), but it must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than general conclusions or denials.

Ruple v. Weinaug · filed 1983-01-12(e)

We find nothing wrong in incorporating a verified complaint. It must, however, satisfy the requirements of SDCL 15-6-56(e). Here, appellant denied the truth of appellee’s statements in a generalized conclusory manner. Facts must be met by facts, not by mere conclusions or denials.

A party opposing summary judgment under subsection (e) must diligently present specific facts; general allegations and denials do not prevent judgment.

Lee v. Beauchene · filed 1983-08-24(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) requires that the party opposing a motion for summary judgment be diligent in resisting the motion. “[MJere general allegations and denials which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent the issuance of a judgment.”

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; mere allegations are insufficient.

Valmont Credit Corp. v. McIlravy · filed 1984-02-29(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) states, in pertinent part: ... When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in § 15-6-56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in § 15-6-56, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. ... We find that appellants’ mere allegations of a close connection between Valmont and Sandhills Implement are insufficient to raise a genuine question of material fact as to the good faith assignment of the purchase security agreement.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present specific facts; general allegations do not prevent summary judgment.

Peterson v. Rogers · filed 1984-04-25(e)

SDCL 15 — 6—56(e) requires the party opposing a summary judgment motion to be diligent in resisting it; mere general allegations which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent issuance of a summary judgment.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with facts viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Williams v. Williams · filed 1984-05-02(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) provides for the entry of summary judgment upon satisfaction of two conditions. First, the trial court must determine from all the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, etc. that there is no genuine issue of material fact. It must further determine from such records that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In making these determinations, it views the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when no material fact is genuinely disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Staab v. Cameron · filed 1984-07-18(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In making these determinations, the trial court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; mere allegations and arguments are insufficient.

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Gridley · filed 1985-02-06(e)

The non-moving party must present specific facts which demonstrate there is a genuine, material issue for trial.

Under subsection (e), a party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts through an affidavit or other discovery showing a genuine factual issue rather than rest on the pleadings.

Lalley v. Safway Steel Scaffolds, Inc. · filed 1985-03-13(e)

This Court recognized in Hunt v. Briggs, 267 N.W.2d 566 (S.D.1978), that the nonmoving party to a summary judgment may not rest upon the pleadings, but must present a response that sets forth specific facts through affidavit or other means of discovery which shows that a genuine issue of fact exists. SDCL 15-6-56(e).

Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the facts must be viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Hopes v. Black Hills Power and Light Co. · filed 1986-04-23(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In making these determinations, the trial court must review the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the opposing party, establishes that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Aase v. State, South Dakota Board of Regents · filed 1987-01-28

Therefore, the trial court was correct in entering summary judgment within the strict standards set forth in Wilson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968). The evidence viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs establishes that the Board of Regents, individually and in their official capacities, are entitled as a matter of law to judgment dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Zeeb v. Handel · filed 1987-02-25(c)

Summary judgment should be rendered only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment if any basis supports the trial court’s ruling.

Harmon v. Christy Lumber, Inc. · filed 1987-03-11(c)

However, summary judgment is proper if there exists any basis which would support the trial courts' ruling.

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; unsupported allegations and conclusions do not suffice.

Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Sioux Falls v. First National Bank in Sioux Falls · filed 1987-05-13(e)

Jeanette failed to "set forth specific facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial" as required by SDCL 15-6-56(e). Summary judgment was therefore properly granted.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bego v. Gordon · filed 1987-06-10(c)

Summary judgment is authorized only when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Klatt v. Continental Insurance Co. · filed 1987-07-08(c)

Summary judgment is authorized only when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Summary judgment is allowed only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Amert v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 1987-07-22(c)

Summary judgment is allowed only when the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c); Trapp v. Madera Pacific, Inc., 390 N.W.2d 558, 564 (S.D.1986).

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; general allegations without specific supporting facts do not prevent judgment.

Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc. · filed 1988-12-07(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) provides that summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ... By these standards, it is apparent that Breen has presented no specific facts indicating that Dakota contractually limited its authority to dismiss him.

Subsection (d) allows a court to enter partial summary judgment on a motion requesting full summary judgment even when partial relief was not specifically requested.

Theunissen v. Brisky · filed 1989-03-29(d)

We find that the answer lies in the provisions of SDCL 15 — 6—56(d) which provides in pertinent part: ... The trial court followed the provision quoted above and entered the order for partial summary judgment. ... We affirm the procedural aspect of the trial court’s entry of the partial summary judgment order.

Section 15-6-56 permits a court to consider a deposition taken solely for discovery when deciding a summary judgment motion.

Schultz v. Mills Mutual Insurance Group · filed 1991-09-04

(1) For the purpose of deciding a summary judgment motion, may a trial court consider a deposition which was taken for discovery purposes only? We hold that it may.

A party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Limpert v. Bail · filed 1989-10-04(e)

Accordingly, we conclude that Bail has set forth specific facts showing there are genuine issues for trial as required by SDCL 15-6-56(e).

Section 15-6-56(c) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Garrett v. BankWest, Inc. · filed 1990-08-01(c)

The non-moving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial; allegations and denials alone do not suffice.

Werner v. Norwest Bank South Dakota, N.A. · filed 1993-04-21

When resisting a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must be diligent. Mere allegations and denials which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent issuance of a judgment.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; merely referring to the pleadings is insufficient.

Parsons v. Dacy · filed 1993-06-09(e)

She “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [her] pleading, but [her] response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” SDCL 15-6-56(e).

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; mere allegations are insufficient.

Estate of Thomas v. Sheffield · filed 1994-02-09(c)

Although Sheffield alleged at the Motions Hearing that Thomas could not perform, mere allegations are not sufficient to preclude summary judgment.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; allegations in the pleadings alone are insufficient.

Specialty Mills, Inc. v. Citizens State Bank · filed 1997-02-05(e)

The nonmoving party must present specific facts which demonstrate a genuine, material issue for trial. Allegations which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent the issuance of a summary judgment.

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; unsupported conclusions and speculation do not suffice.

Paradigm Hotel Mortgage Fund v. Sioux Falls Hotel Co. · filed 1994-01-26(e)

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in § 15-6-56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in § 15-6-56, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. ... Unsupported conclusions and speculative statements do not raise a genuine issue of fact.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Farm Credit Bank of Omaha v. Maberry · filed 1993-03-31(c)

Defendants have failed to “present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.” ... Summary judgment was appropriate.

Once a summary judgment motion is supported, the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on allegations or denials in the pleadings.

Plato v. State Bank of Alcester · filed 1996-11-06(e)

On the other hand, once a motion is supported as provided in § 15-6-56, a nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials in pleadings, but must respond by “affidavits or as otherwise provided in § 15-6-56,” setting forth specific facts showing the existence of genuine issues for trial.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; mere allegations do not suffice.

Miessner v. All Dakota Insurance Associates, Inc. · filed 1994-04-13(e)

As previously noted, while the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and reasonable doubts must be resolved against the moving party, the non-moving party must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set out specific facts showing a genuine issue; general allegations and denials do not suffice.

Mark, Inc. v. Maguire Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 1994-06-08(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) requires the opposing party to be diligent in resisting a motion for summary judgment, and mere general allegations and denials which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent the issuance of a judgment.

When a summary judgment motion is supported, the opposing party must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; allegations or denials alone do not suffice.

Peterson v. Dacy · filed 1996-06-19(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) provides in relevant part: "[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in §15-6-56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise provided in §15-6-56, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." [¶14] We find no evidence of malice has been shown in this case.

When a summary judgment motion is properly made and supported, the opposing party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial rather than rely on allegations or denials in the pleadings.

Tipton v. Town of Tabor · filed 1997-07-23(e)

"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in § 15-6-56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials" in the pleadings, but must present specifics showing genuine, material fact issues for trial.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to identify specific genuine factual issues through an affidavit or another permitted response.

Satellite Cable Serv. · filed 1998-07-01(e)

When summary judgment is supported as provided in §15-6-56, the nonmovant may not rest on allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided in §15-6-56, and set forth particulars showing genuine fact issues exist for trial.

When a summary judgment motion is properly supported, the opposing party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact rather than rely on pleadings.

Tipton v. City of Tabor · filed 1997-07-23(e)

"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in § 15-6-56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials" in the pleadings, but must present specifics showing genuine, material fact issues for trial.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; conclusory assertions are insufficient.

Guilford v. Northwestern Public Service · filed 1998-07-01(c)

Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Guilford, he had a duty to present "specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists."

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing a supported summary judgment motion to set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; uncontroverted deposition testimony can support judgment.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ragatz · filed 1997-10-29(e)

In reviewing summary judgments, we decide only whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the law was correctly applied. ... There is nothing in the record either by way of affidavit, deposition, answers to interrogatories, or admissions of a party setting forth facts to controvert the deposition testimony of David and Carl. ... Thus, there is a sufficient basis to support summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

Under § 15-6-56(e), a party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; general allegations and denials are insufficient.

Casazza v. State · filed 2000-08-30(e)

Under SDCL 15-6-56(e), "the opposing party [must] be diligent in resisting a motion for summary judgment, and mere general allegations and denials which do not set forth specific facts will not prevent the issuance of a judgment." Hughes-Johnson Co., Inc. v. Dakota Midland Hosp., 86 S.D. 361, 364, 195 N.W.2d 519, 521 (1972) (citing Liberty Leasing Co. v. Hillsum Sales Corp., 380 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir.1967); Engl v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 139 F.2d 469 (2d Cir.1943)). A review of this case shows that Casazza has failed to "present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists" in regards to the issue of sovereign immunity.

Section 15-6-56 does not prevent a directed verdict after the evidence is fully developed merely because summary judgment was previously denied.

Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital · filed 2001-05-29

A preclusion of summary judgment does not necessarily prevent a directed verdict once the evidence has been fully developed.