S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-56

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to provide specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact.

Brown Eyes v. State · filed 2001-06-27(e)

Plaintiffs have failed to provide specific facts which show that a genuine and material issue of fact exists on sovereign immunity as required under SDCL 15-6-56(e).

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

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Scott · filed 2003-12-23(e)

Pursuant to SDCL 15-6-56(e) Scotts may not rely on mere conclusory statements to meet their burden of proving that a genuine issue remains for trial.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; inadmissible hearsay does not suffice.

Luther v. City of Winner · filed 2004-01-07(e)

These assertions were insufficient to overcome summary judgment. “[T]he non-moving party in a summary judgment proceeding ‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” ... The affidavit of Luther’s doctor was hearsay and would have been inadmissible.

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

Milligan v. Waldo · filed 2001-01-03(c)

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

Subsection (e) requires the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; speculation does not meet that burden.

Gehrts v. Batteen · filed 2001-01-17(e)

As the nonmoving party, Gehrts has the obligation to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." SDCL 15-6-56(e).

Subsection (e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Rowland v. Log Cabin, Inc. · filed 2003-02-19(e)

As the nonmoving party, Rowland had “the obligation to ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Gehrts, 2001 SD 10 at ¶ 12, 620 N.W.2d at 779 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(e)).

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; speculation that witnesses may give different accounts is insufficient.

Roden v. General Casualty Co. of Wisconsin · filed 2003-10-29(e)

According to SDCL 15-6-56(e), the non-moving party in a summary judgment proceeding "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Thus, General Casualty may not rely on mere conclusory statements that these witnesses may offer alternate versions of the facts. Because General Casualty has failed to present specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial, the trial court did not err in granting Roden's motion for summary judgment.

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

Brown Eyes v. South Dakota Department of Social Services · filed 2001-06-27(e)

Plaintiffs have failed to provide specific facts which show that a genuine and material issue of fact exists on sovereign immunity as required under SDCL 15—6—56(e).

A party opposing supported summary judgment must present specific facts through affidavits or other credible evidence showing a genuine issue for trial.

Stanga v. Husman · filed 2005-03-16(e)

Furthermore, Stanga has not set forth specific facts through affidavits or other credible evidence to support his allegations that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the modifications lessen the utility of the easement, increase the burdens on him in the use and enjoyment of the easement, or frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created.

Under § 15-6-56(c), the party opposing summary judgment must present facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Krier v. Dell Rapids Twp. · filed 2006-01-25(c)

However, the nonmoving party must present facts showing that a genuine and material issue for trial exists. ... Krier has failed to produce any evidence of a separate and distinct injury and, as a result, has made no showing the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for the Township.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to identify specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; a general denial of asserted undisputed facts is insufficient.

Delka v. Continental Casualty Co. · filed 2008-04-02(e)

This general response failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as required by SDCL 15-6-56(e).

An affidavit opposing summary judgment must provide specific facts; undated, boilerplate, conclusory allegations are inadequate.

Zephier v. Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls · filed 2008-06-25(e)

This type of undated, identical, boilerplate affidavit is inadequate to meet the requirements of SDCL 15-6-56(e).

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; general statements in an affidavit are insufficient.

One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis · filed 2008-06-25(e)

These types of general statements are insufficient to rebut a properly supported motion for summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(e).

When a summary judgment motion is properly supported, the opposing party must designate specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

State Auto Insurance Companies v. B.N.C. · filed 2005-07-27(e)

Because Ault’s motion was properly supported, State Auto, as the adverse party, must have designated specific facts that revealed a genuine issue for trial.

The nonmoving party must present specific evidence showing a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment.

Hoaas v. Griffiths · filed 2006-03-22(c)

The nonmoving party, however, has the responsibility to come forward with specific evidence which places a material fact in dispute. Griffiths failed to do so.

A party opposing summary judgment must present specific facts; unsupported allegations and conspiracy theories do not defeat the motion.

Pellegrino v. Loen · filed 2007-12-12(c)

Allegations and conspiracy theories not backed by specific facts will not defeat a summary judgment motion.

When a summary judgment motion is supported by evidence, the opposing party must respond with an affidavit or other evidence to establish a genuine factual dispute; general allegations are insufficient.

Bickner v. RAYMOND TP. · filed 2008-04-02(e)

But he relies only on general allegations and provides no evidence to support his claim. In circuit court, he failed to respond by means of affidavit or otherwise to refute the evidence provided by the Township showing that a warning sign for a sharp turn never existed. See SDCL 15-6-56(e); Bordeaux v. Shannon County Schools, 2005 SD 117, ¶14, 707 NW2d 123, 127 (citing Hughes-Johnson Co. v. Dakota Midland Hosp., 195 NW2d 519, 521 (SD 1972)).

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Clark County v. Sioux Equipment Corp. · filed 2008-07-02(e)

County’s and PRCF’s argument was insufficient because SDCL 15-6- 56(e) requires a response setting forth specific facts.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires the party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Ehresmann v. Muth · filed 2008-10-29(e)

In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." One Star v. Sisters of St. Francis, 2008 SD 55, ¶ 23, 752 NW2d 668, 678 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56 (e)). Ehresmann has satisfied this requirement with respect to his claims of fraud and deceit and negligent misrepresentation.

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial; a speculative inference is insufficient.

Cashman v. Van Dyke · filed 2012-05-30(e)

While the facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “[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 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.” SDCL 15-6-56(e).

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

Morris Family LLC v. South Dakota Department of Transportation · filed 2014-12-23(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.”

To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must show a genuine issue of material fact as to each element of the claim.

Fix v. First State Bank of Roscoe · filed 2011-11-30(c)

To survive the Bank’s motion for summary judgment, Fix needed to demonstrate that there was an issue of material fact as to each of the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress: “(1) an act by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff severe emotional distress; (3) the defendant’s conduct was the cause in-fact of plaintiff’s distress; and (4) the plaintiff suffered an extreme disabling emotional response to defendant’s conduct.” Anderson v. First Century Fed. Credit Union, 2007 S.D. 65, ¶ 38, 738 N.W.2d 40, 51-52.

Section 15-6-56(e) shifts the burden of production to the opposing party after the moving party makes a prima facie showing for summary judgment.

CASEY RANCH LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Casey · filed 2009-09-23(e)

Thus, CRLP, as the party affirmatively asserting Mike’s removal for malfeasance, had the initial summary judgment burden to establish the absence of genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment on this issue as a matter of law.

A party opposing summary judgment who bears the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Eagleman v. Diocese of Rapid City · filed 2015-04-15(e)

If the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, that party must, “by . . . affidavits, or by ‘the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,’ designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); SDCL 15-6-56(e).

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

Karst v. Shur-Co. · filed 2016-04-20(e)

As the nonmoving party, Karsts “may only avoid [properly supported] summary judgment by ‘setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co., 2015 S.D. 42, ¶ 7, 865 N.W.2d 155, 158 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(e)) (emphasis added).

A party opposing summary judgment must raise a genuine issue of material fact in response to the motion to avoid judgment.

Schliem v. State Ex Rel. Department of Transportation · filed 2016-12-07(e)

Moreover, in order to avoid summary judgment, Schliem had an obligation to raise a genuine issue of material fact in response to the State’s motion for summary judgment.

A party opposing summary judgment must identify a genuine factual dispute after the movant makes a prima facie showing; mere allegations and denials do not suffice.

Domson, Inc. v. Kadrmas Lee & Jackson, Inc. · filed 2018-09-19(e)

But a party may not resist summary judgment with mere denials and allegations.

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

Inst. of Range & the Am. Mustang v. Nature Conservancy · filed 2018-12-26(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." ... IRAM did not meet that standard here.

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

Cooper v. Brownell · filed 2019-02-06(e)

As the party resisting summary judgment, Cooper was required to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” SDCL 15-6-56(e).

The party moving for summary judgment must clearly demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Gantvoort v. Ranschau · filed 2022-04-06(c)

The moving party carries “the burden of clearly demonstrating an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”

Section 15-6-56(b) permits summary judgment in a mandamus action when the question is whether a clear legal duty to act exists.

Bohn v. Bueno · filed 2024-02-07(b)

Citizens assert that summary judgment was not an available remedy to dispose of the writ of mandamus. Summary judgment is available for “[a] party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought[.]” SDCL 15-6-56(b). “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate to dispose of legal, not factual questions.” Trapp v. Madera Pacific, Inc., 390 N.W.2d 558, 562 (S.D. 1986). A writ of mandamus presents the legal question about whether someone has a clear legal duty to act. Therefore, summary judgment can be appropriate.

A party opposing a supported summary judgment motion may not rely solely on allegations or denials in its pleading.

Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Co. · filed 2024-07-10(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 of his pleading[.]” SDCL 15-6-56(e).

A party opposing summary judgment must identify disputed material facts and set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual · filed 2026-02-04(c)(2), (e)

Under SDCL 15-6-56(c)(2), “[a] party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a separate, short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the opposing party contends a genuine issue exists to be tried.” Additionally, a non-moving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response . . . 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.”

Section 15-6-56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits to state admissible facts based on personal knowledge; hearsay and statements of efforts to obtain evidence receive no weight.

Farmers and Merchants State Bank v. Mann · filed 1973-01-04(e)

The affidavits of both plaintiffs and defendants’ counsel did not relate to “specific facts showing that there [was] a genuine issue for trial.” Some were statements of law and procedure; those of defendants were hearsay evidence and statements of attempts to procure evidence of a claimed defense. They did not show facts made on their “personal knowledge” which “would be admissible in evidence” or that they were “competent to testify to the matters stated therein”. These statements are therefore not to be given any weight.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party opposing summary judgment to set forth specific, admissible facts showing a genuine issue of material fact; affidavits lacking firsthand knowledge do not suffice.

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Delzer · filed 1979-09-05(e)

Defendant submitted two affidavits on the issue of damages. We hold that neither of these present a genuine issue of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(e). ... We therefore conclude that defendant failed to fulfill its burden under the statute by not setting forth specific facts to show that plaintiff should not recover the $7,016 it paid its insured.

An affidavit supporting summary judgment under subsection (e) must show that the affiant has personal knowledge and is competent to testify to the matters stated.

Hubbard Milling Co. v. Frame · filed 1981-09-09(e)

Further, it appears that appellee’s affidavit in support of summary judgment was deficient within the meaning of SDCL 15-6-56(e) inasmuch as it was signed by appellee’s attorney without a showing that it was made on personal knowledge and without a showing that the affiant was competent to testify at trial to the matters stated in the affidavit.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires supporting affidavits to set out admissible facts and show the affiant is competent to testify; a party must object to deficient affidavits to obtain reversal on that ground.

Bourk v. ISEMAN MOBILE HOMES, ETC. · filed 1982-02-24(e)

This judgment could be reversed because the affidavits supporting Iseman’s and Windsor’s motions for summary judgment were insufficient. They were made by counsel for the parties and therefore were not made on personal belief, they did not set forth facts admissible in evidence, but were mere denials of appellants’ allegations and testimony, and they did not show affirmatively that the affiant was competent to testify to the matters sworn to. SDCL 15-6-56(e). ... However, since appellants failed to object to the insufficiency of the affidavits, we do not base our reversal on that ground.

An affidavit that contradicts earlier deposition testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact unless the party explains the change or shows that the earlier answers were ambiguous and the affidavit clarified them.

Taggart v. Ford Motor Credit Co. · filed 1990-10-31(c)

Likewise, barring an explanation for his change in testimony or a showing that his answers were ambiguous and the affidavit clarified them, Taggart’s affidavit did not create a material issue of fact.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits to be based on personal knowledge and to set forth admissible facts; secondhand assertions do not supply direct proof.

Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe · filed 1998-09-09(e)

Based on a second hand assertion from his own answers to interrogatories, Calvello insists that the General Council did authorize participation in arbitration. He submits no direct proof in the form of a tribal resolution, an affidavit, or otherwise. See Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. First Nat'l Bank, 405 N.W.2d 655 (S.D.1987) (conclusory assertions insufficient); SDCL 15-6-56(e) (affidavits must be made on personal knowledge setting forth facts admissible in evidence).

Section 15-6-56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits to be based on personal knowledge and contain legally admissible evidence.

Kuehl v. Horner (J.W.) Lumber Co. · filed 2004-04-07(e)

Evidence submitted in affidavits as part of a summary judgment proceeding must be made on personal knowledge and be legally admissible.

Affidavits submitted for summary judgment must rest on personal knowledge and contain facts that would be admissible in evidence; hearsay requires a foundation for an exception.

Chem-Age Industries, Inc. v. Glover · filed 2002-10-02(e)

Evidence submitted in affidavits as part of a summary judgment proceeding must be legally admissible. SDCL 15-6-56(e) ("affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, [and] shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence...."). Parties cannot rely on recitations of hearsay in affidavit form, without also laying a foundation for an exception to the hearsay rule.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires summary judgment affidavits to rest on personal knowledge and admissible facts; conclusory allegations cannot establish entitlement to judgment.

Olesen v. Town (City) of Hurley · filed 2004-12-29(e)

SDCL 15-6-56(e) requires that affidavits be based on personal knowledge and supported by facts that would be admissible into evidence. Mere conclusory allegations are not substitutes for specific facts. The finance officer's affidavit only established that EMC denied coverage to City. This affidavit did not establish, as a matter of law, the extent of City's insurance coverage.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires the party moving for summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that judgment is appropriate, even when the opposing party submits no evidence.

Wm. Collins, Inc. v. South Dakota State Board of Transportation · filed 1978-03-29(e)

The burden, however, is on the moving party to show that there are no genuine issues of material facts and that summary judgment is appropriate in this case.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires the moving party to present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment; meager facts and a legal conclusion do not meet that burden.

Glanzer v. St. Joseph Indian School · filed 1989-03-22(e)

Although these meager facts coupled with a legal conclusion fall far short of the evidentiary mark established for a moving party by SDCL 15-6-56(e), the trial court refused to deny St. Joseph’s motion and directed Glanzers to proceed with their resistance to the motion.

A summary judgment movant must establish a prima facie basis for judgment; conclusory affidavits do not suffice when evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact.

State, Department of Revenue v. Thiewes · filed 1989-11-15(c)

Their affidavits are con-elusory. An agent of Department filed an affidavit that the bond did not cover a year’s gross receipts. Therefore, the evi-dentiary material offered in support of the motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish a prima facie case and summary judgment should not have been granted.

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Morgan v. Baldwin · filed 1990-01-24(c)

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

On summary judgment, the movant bears the burden of showing that no genuine factual dispute over causation remains.

Koeniguer v. Eckrich · filed 1988-04-27(c)

For summary judgment purposes Hospital had the burden and did not demonstrate that the physician's alleged negligence superceded any negligence by Hospital and was the sole proximate cause of Scoblic's death.

The party moving for summary judgment must clearly show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Bruntz v. Rutherford · filed 1990-02-07

The burden of proof is on the moving party to show clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On review under subsection (c), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Massey Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Bice · filed 1990-01-17(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.

The moving party bears the burden of showing both that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Lamp v. First National Bank of Garretson · filed 1993-02-03(c)

No one is entitled to summary judgment unless entitled thereto as a matter of law and there are no genuine issues of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c). Here, the trial court incorrectly placed the burden upon the non-moving party instead of upon the moving party, the Bank.

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

Richards v. Lenz · filed 1995-10-18(c)

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that here is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

An adverse party opposing a supported summary judgment motion must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and cannot rely on the pleadings alone.

Petersen 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.

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

Moss v. Guttormsom · filed 1996-06-26(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 party moving for summary judgment must clearly show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Tucek v. Mueller · filed 1994-02-09(c)

These appellees carry the burden of proof to show clearly that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On summary judgment, the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Swanson v. SIOUX VALLEY ELEC. ASS'N · filed 1995-08-02

In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, we will examine each of Swanson's claims to determine if any genuine issue of material fact exists and to determine if SVEEA met its burden to show no genuine issue of material fact exists.

The moving party must clearly show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Chord v. Reynolds · filed 1999-01-06(c)

The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. ... The moving party, Continental, did show an absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Summary judgment is improper when the moving party fails to show that no genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved.

KEYSTONE PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION v. Eastep · filed 2004-03-03

The association, as the moving party, has not carried its burden to show that no genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved.

Section 15-6-56(c) places the burden on the party seeking summary judgment to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

McDowell v. Citicorp U.S.A. · filed 2007-06-06(c)

“The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”

A nonmoving party can defeat summary judgment by identifying a genuine dispute of material fact without proving the ultimate merits at that stage.

Johnson v. Matthew J. Batchelder Co., Inc. · filed 2010-03-03(c)

Considering Johnson’s post-deposition affidavits and the inferences from that evidence in a light most favorable to Johnsons, they identified disputed issues of material fact for a jury to determine whether Batchelder breached any applicable duties of care to keep the property reasonably safe. As the non-moving parties, that was Johnsons’ only burden. The circuit court erred in imposing the ultimate burden of establishing a breach of duty on Johnsons at the summary judgment stage.

Once the party moving for summary judgment establishes a prima facie case, the opposing party must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Klein v. Sanford USD Medical Center · filed 2015-12-09(e)

Therefore, the burden of production shifted to Klein to identify facts creating a genuine dispute whether Sanford acted in good faith. See Dakota Indus., Inc., 2009 S.D. 39, ¶ 14, 766 N.W.2d at 514 (noting that one opposing summary judgment “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(e))).

Under subsection (c), the non-moving party bears the burden to show evidence supporting an essential element of its claim.

S.D. Petroleum Release Compensation Fund v. Bp · filed 2020-08-12(c)

As the non-moving party, the Fund has the burden under SDCL 15-6- 56(c) to show that coverage existed under a CGL policy purchased by BP for cleanup costs at the 27 UST sites.

Under subsection (c), the party moving for summary judgment must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Mahmoudi v. City of Spearfish · filed 2025-08-20(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.”

Section 15-6-56 requires a motion for summary judgment or an equivalent motion before the court may grant summary judgment.

Schuldt v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. · filed 1978-11-30(a) and (b)

South Dakota statutes authorizing summary judgment... require that a motion for summary judgment, or an equivalent motion,... be made before summary judgment may be granted.

A denial of summary judgment under § 15-6-56 is an interlocutory order that cannot be appealed until judgment is entered after trial on the merits.

Brasel v. Myers · filed 1975-05-23

Consequently, Myerses' appeal is before this court under SDCL 15-6-56, which statute is identical to F.R. Civ.P. 56. ... Therefore, Myerses' appeal is untimely until the matter has been tried on the merits.

Section 15-6-56(f) leaves additional discovery before summary judgment to the trial court’s discretion when the submitted materials show the facts surrounding the controversy.

Williams Insurance of Pierre v. Bear Butte Farms Partnership · filed 1986-08-27(f)

Thus, if the pleadings and affidavits submitted with a summary judgment motion and opposition thereto show the facts surrounding the controversy, it is within the trial court’s discretion to refuse any additional discovery. In this case no affidavits opposing the motion were filed. We find no abuse of discretion, particularly in light of Edland’s and Chabot’s failure to formally request discovery.

Summary judgment may be granted before discovery closes when the only disputed issue is a question of law and proposed testimony would not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Froiland v. Tritle · filed 1992-05-13(c)

In light of our holding regarding the extent of Tritle’s insurable interest, we find that trial court correctly concluded Hegg’s testimony would not create a genuine issue of material fact. The parties’ intentions as to the insurable interest cannot override the controlling law adopted by our legislature, since the legislature establishes the public policy for a transaction of this nature in this state. As the only disputed issue in this case was the extent of Tritle’s insurable interest, entirely a question of law, summary judgment at the time it was granted was proper.

Section 15-6-56(f) allows a court to deny a continuance for discovery to oppose summary judgment when the party had ample time to take depositions but delayed seeking them.

Anderson v. Keller · filed 2007-08-15(f)

Anderson had ample time to conduct depositions of Keller and Jenniges, but showed no interest in doing so prior to October 2006. The circuit court may well have decided that Anderson simply wanted to engage in a fishing expedition and we see no reason to compel it to embark on such a voyage at this late date.

Section 15-6-56(f) requires a party seeking further discovery before summary judgment to show that the discovery is essential to opposing the motion.

Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Cabela's.Com, Inc. · filed 2009-05-20(f)

In this case, Dakota Industries’ affidavit in support of its opposition to summary judgment did not show how further discovery regarding Cabela’s sales was essential to opposing Cabela’s motion for summary judgment.

A general request for additional discovery does not satisfy subsection (f) without identifying specific facts that discovery could reveal and how they would help oppose summary judgment.

Stern Oil Co. v. Border States Paving, Inc. · filed 2014-05-14(f)

This general statement seeking further discovery of each party’s knowledge was insufficient to satisfy the showing necessary under SDCL 15-6-56(f).

A party opposing summary judgment must identify probable facts essential to the opposition that additional discovery could produce; speculation does not justify more discovery time.

Peters v. Great Western Bank, Inc. · filed 2015-01-28(f)

Because Peters “did not articulate probable facts relevant to [the existence of a lien on BLI’s real or personal property] that could have been developed with additional discovery[,]” id., the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Peters’s motion as moot.

Section 15-6-56(f) permits a continuance for discovery only when the facts sought are essential to opposing summary judgment.

Gores v. Miller · filed 2016-02-03(f)

Under the rule, “the facts sought through discovery must be essential to opposing the summary judgment[.]” Id.; SDCL 15-6-56(f).

Under § 15-6-56(f), the circuit court has discretion to decide whether a party has shown that additional discovery is necessary to defeat a summary judgment motion.

Harvieux v. Progressive N. Ins. Co. · filed 2018-07-03(f)

The circuit court has discretion under SDCL 15-6-56(f) to determine whether a party has demonstrated that additional discovery is necessary to defeat the motion for summary judgment.

A party seeking further discovery under subsection (f) must show how that discovery could defeat a motion for summary judgment; discovery that cannot change the result may be denied.

Redlin Trust v. First Interstate Bank · filed 2024-01-31(f)

She claims that SDCL 15-6-56(f) entitles her to conduct further discovery. But, as First Interstate points out, such relief requires Kelly to “show[ ] how further discovery will defeat the motion for summary judgment.” Davies v. GPHC, LLC, 2022 S.D. 55, ¶ 51, 980 N.W.2d 251, 265 (alteration in original). By Kelly’s own account, the communications, if they existed, would at most clarify whether First Interstate was acting as a co-trustee and which party had taken the initiative to invest the assets. Since we have already held that placing the assets in the money market account was not a breach of fiduciary duty, additional discovery would not save Kelly from summary judgment. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for further discovery.

A Rule 56(f) affidavit seeking more discovery before summary judgment must identify the facts sought, the steps taken to obtain them, and how more time would allow the opposing party to contest the asserted absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Davies v. Gphc, LLC · filed 2022-09-14(f)

These cursory, “non-particularized” statements do not satisfy the standard for granting a continuance under Rule 56(f). Id. ¶ 27, 848 N.W.2d at 282. Davies identifies no facts to be discovered, what prior steps had been taken to seek them, or how additional time to take the depositions of Black and Wilson would have allowed him to contest the undisputed material facts contained in GPHC’s motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davies’s motion under Rule 56(f).

A party seeking additional discovery before summary judgment must identify probable unavailable facts and show how that discovery could defeat the motion; speculation that evidence may exist is insufficient.

Paulsen v. McKennan · filed 2025-07-16(f)

“Mere speculation that there is some relevant evidence not yet discovered will never suffice.” Id. ¶ 28 (citation omitted). The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it implicitly denied Paulsen’s request to conduct additional discovery.

Section 15-6-56(f) permits a continuance for discovery when the party opposing summary judgment shows that the requested discovery is needed to oppose the motion.

STROM TRUST v. SCS CARBON TRANSPORT, LLC · filed 2024-08-21(f)

These assertions are sufficient for purposes of a continuance to engage in discovery under Rule 56(f), especially in light of SCS’s significant resistance to Landowners’ discovery and deposition requests.

Motions for summary judgment are ordinarily unsuitable in equitable actions.

Hyde v. Liebelt · filed 1986-08-29

We have said motions for summary judgment are not ordinarily suitable in equitable actions.

Section 15-6-56(c) allows summary judgment in an equitable action when no material facts are in dispute.

Berbos v. Krage · filed 2008-07-16(c)

Even though this action sounds in equity, and such cases are not often susceptible to summary judgment, if there are no material issues of fact in dispute, summary judgment may be appropriate.

Section 15-6-56 permits summary judgment in habeas corpus proceedings because its procedure does not conflict with the habeas corpus statute.

Reutter v. Meierhenry · filed 1987-05-06

The question then becomes whether to "proceed in a summary way" is "inconsistent or in conflict" with SDCL § 15-6-56 (summary judgment). We hold there is no inconsistency or conflict.

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when the material facts are undisputed and the remaining issue is one of law.

Union Pacific Railroad v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON · filed 2009-08-05(c)

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts in this case. The only dispute appears to be how the notice provision of the insurance contract should ... be interpreted.

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

Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc. · filed 1987-09-30(c)

Two questions must be asked in analyzing whether summary judgment is proper. First, are there "genuine issues as to any material fact?" SDCL 15-6-56(c). Second, is the moving party "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law?" Id.

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.

Ewalt v. Mereen-Johnson MacHine Co. · filed 1987-10-14(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.

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

Bauer v. American Freight System, Inc. · filed 1988-04-20(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 proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Blote v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rapid City · filed 1988-04-27(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) states that summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with any affidavits, 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.

Under subsection (c), the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Pickering v. Pickering · filed 1989-01-11(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.

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.

Merritt v. Edson Express, Inc. · filed 1989-03-15(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. ... Therefore, we conclude that Merritt's employment was terminable at the will of Employer under SDCL 60-4-4, and the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of Employer.

Section 15-6-56 requires the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Dahme Construction Co. v. Web Water Development Ass'n · filed 1989-04-12

In reviewing a trial court order granting summary judgment, 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.

When no genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment turns on whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

First Federal Savings Bank v. Trolinger · filed 1989-05-24(c)

The parties agree that there is no genuine issue of material fact in this case; therefore, the question is whether First Federal is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c); Wilson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968).

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.

Peterson v. Glory House of Sioux Falls · filed 1989-07-05(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) provides that summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We agree that there is no material issue of fact. However, Peterson is in error when he says that we have not definitively rejected his causes of action. As detailed in the discussions above, we have defined the boundaries of our public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine and we have repeatedly refused to recognize a cause of action based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On the facts of this case, Glory House was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.

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

First Western Bank v. Livestock Yards Co. · filed 1989-08-09(c)

Summary judgment is proper only when the moving party shows that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.

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

S.W. Croes Family Trust v. Small Business Administration · filed 1989-09-20(c)

Summary judgment is proper if it can be shown 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.

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.

Wang v. Wang · filed 1989-11-01(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 is warranted when undisputed facts establish that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, including on a counterclaim.

Thomas v. McNeill · filed 1989-11-22(c)

With these simple facts, Thomas demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. Had the law been correctly applied, the trial court had no basis whatsoever to deny Thomas’ motion for summary judgment regarding McNeill’s counterclaim for reformation.

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.

Gasper v. Freidel · filed 1990-01-03(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), the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Mushitz v. First Bank of South Dakota · filed 1990-06-20(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 matter of law.

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.

Western States Land & Cattle Co. v. Lexington Insurance Co. · filed 1990-07-18(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 under § 15-6-56(c) is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

American State Bank v. Adkins · filed 1990-07-18(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Sheehan v. Morris Irrigation, Inc. · filed 1990-08-08(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 moving party bears the burden of persuasion, while the nonmoving party must identify specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Waddell v. Dewey County Bank · filed 1991-06-12(c)

While the moving party bears the burden of persuasion and all the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it is well established that the nonmoving party must direct the court’s attention to specific facts in the case which demonstrate a genuine and material issue for trial.

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

Trammell v. Prairie States Insurance Co. · filed 1991-07-17(c)

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

Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Wyant · filed 1991-09-04(c)

Summary judgment is proper where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 221, 223 (S.D.1988); Koeniguer v. Eckrich, 422 N.W.2d 600, 601 (S.D.1988); SDCL 15-6-56(c). All parties agree that there is no material issue of fact and that the question is one of law for which summary judgment is proper.

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.

Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Satterlee · filed 1991-09-18(c)

In determining whether summary judgment is proper, a court must first determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, and secondly, whether the moving party is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” ... Since the parties concede that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court’s ruling on the law can only be set aside if the court erred.

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; the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Clauson v. Kempffer · filed 1991-11-06(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 non-moving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The non-moving party, however, must present specific facts which demonstrate a genuine, material issue for trial.

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitles the movant to judgment as a matter of law.

Brazones v. Prothe · filed 1992-08-12

As set forth in Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857 (S.D.1983), the standard of review for summary judgment is drawn from SDCL 15-6-56 and Wilson v. Great N. Ry. Co., 83 S.D. 207, 157 N.W.2d 19 (1968). Courts in South Dakota may grant summary judgment when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party clearly shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Ashby v. Northwestern Public Service Co. · filed 1992-09-30(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.

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

City of Sioux Falls v. Miller · filed 1992-11-04(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.

Under subsection (c), the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

FARM CREDIT BANK OF OMAHA v. Maberry · filed 1993-03-31(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 is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

King v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. · filed 1993-05-19(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. Hurney v. Locke, 308 N.W.2d 764 (S.D. 1981); SDCL 15-6-56(c). Thus, we find that summary judgment was proper here, and accordingly affirm.

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.

Davis v. Frizzell · filed 1993-08-04(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Sioux Falls School District v. South Dakota Subsequent Injury Fund · filed 1993-08-04(c)

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

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.

Aune v. B-Y Water District · filed 1993-09-01(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 requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Nelson v. WEB Water Development Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1993-10-27(c)

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c) we must determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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; the evidence is viewed in the nonmoving party’s favor, but that party must present specific facts showing an issue for trial.

Johnson v. Rapid City Softball Ass'n · filed 1994-03-30(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. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

Summary judgment requires the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Moe v. John Deere Co. · filed 1994-05-25(c)

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must determine whether the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires the moving party to show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Hafner v. Delano · filed 1994-08-10(c)

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we must determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Rogers v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co. · filed 1994-08-24(c)

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c) we must determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there is no genuine issue of material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Ross · filed 1994-08-24(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 § 15-6-56(c), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Koenig v. Lambert · filed 1995-02-08(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.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires the summary judgment movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; reasonable doubts about material facts are resolved against the movant.

Richardson v. East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. · filed 1995-05-03(c)

On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must consider the following: [T]he evidence must be viewed most favorably to the non-moving party; the movant has the burden of proof to clearly show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; ... summary judgment is an extreme remedy and should be awarded only when the truth is clear and reasonable doubts touching upon the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should be resolved against the movant.

Under § 15-6-56(c), summary judgment in a libel action brought by a private person is proper only when the moving party shows no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Sparagon v. Native American Publishers, Inc. · filed 1996-01-10(c)

We further conclude the established precedents for deciding summary judgment motions apply to libel actions involving private persons. Summary judgment is proper only when the moving party shows that the judgment is merited as a matter of law because there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Under § 15-6-56(e), a summary judgment movant must show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Moss v. Guttormson · filed 1996-06-26(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.

Summary judgment may resolve a legal question when the material facts are undisputed, even in a negligence action.

Harn v. Continental Lumber Co. · filed 1993-09-01(c)

Summary judgment is usually not appropriate in negligence actions because the standard of a reasonable person must be applied to conflicting testimony. If, however, the facts are undisputed, the issue becomes one of law for this Court to decide.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires a summary judgment movant to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Meyer v. Santema · filed 1997-02-26(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 § 15-6-56(c), summary judgment requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review asks whether such an issue exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Kern v. City of Sioux Falls · filed 1997-02-26(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.... Our task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Under § 15-6-56(c), the movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; evidence and reasonable doubts favor the nonmovant, who must identify specific facts requiring trial.

Wildeboer v. South Dakota Junior Chamber of Commerce, Inc. · filed 1997-03-26(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. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

Under subsection (c), the moving party must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Wildeboer v. SD Jr. Chamber of Commerce · filed 1997-03-26(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 requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wiess v. Van Norman · filed 1997-04-16(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 requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact, with reasonable inferences drawn for the nonmoving party.

Horne v. Crozier · filed 1997-06-04(c)

All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party, Rehm v. Lenz, 1996 SD 51, ¶ 9, 547 N.W.2d 560, 564, while the moving party must show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.

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

Gleason v. Peters · filed 1997-08-13(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). On appeal, our task is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Under subsection (c), summary judgment requires the movant to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while the opponent must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Himrich v. Carpenter · filed 1997-10-08(c)

In reviewing a grant ... 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. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

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

Communications Tech. Sys. · filed 1998-08-05(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 requires no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Prairie Lakes Health Care Systems · filed 1998-08-19(c)

The framework for determining summary judgment questions is set forth in SDCL 15-6-56(c): "The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; reasonable inferences favor the nonmoving party.

Vanderwerf v. Kirwan · filed 1998-12-09(c)

[¶ 12.] In review of a motion for summary judgment, we will affirm if no genuine issue of material fact exists. SDCL 15-6-56(c). We draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the Vander-werfs. Even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Vanderwerfs, Gerald and Leona and First Trust are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Lakes' Byron Store, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co. · filed 1999-02-24(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 is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the legal questions have been correctly decided.

Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital · filed 1999-03-10(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). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided.

Under subsection (c), the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Benson v. Goble · filed 1999-03-31(c)

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

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

Fritzel v. Roy Johnson Construction · filed 1999-05-12(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). We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided.

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.

Estate of Elliott Ex Rel. Elliott v. a & B Welding Supply Co. · filed 1999-05-12(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).

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact remains and the legal questions have been correctly decided; the moving party must clearly establish both requirements.

Shevling v. Butte County Board of Commissioners · filed 1999-07-14(c)

We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

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

Nielson v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1999-07-28(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.

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

Stoebner v. S. DAK. FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. · filed 1999-08-11(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.

Under subsection (c), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Drew v. Stanton · filed 1999-12-08(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. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

On summary judgment, evidence and reasonable doubts favor the nonmoving party, who must present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Parmely v. Hilderbrand · filed 1999-12-22(c)

The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

Summary judgment requires the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Parmely v. Hildebrand · filed 1999-12-22(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.

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

Kimball Investment Land, Ltd. v. Chmela · filed 2000-01-12(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).

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

Brevet International, Inc. v. Great Plains Luggage Co. · filed 2000-01-12(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.

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

Hart v. Miller · filed 2000-04-19(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."

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; the evidence is viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, who must present specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.

Read v. McKennan Hospital · filed 2000-05-17(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. The evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party and reasonable doubts should be resolved against the moving party. The nonmoving party, however, must present specific facts showing that a genuine, material issue for trial exists.

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

Holzer v. Dakota Speedway, Inc. · filed 2000-05-17(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).