S.D. Codified Laws § 15-6-56

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

State Cement Plant Comm. v. Wausau Und. Ins. Co. · filed 2000-08-23(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; the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing a genuine, material issue for trial.

Fryer v. Kranz · filed 2000-09-06(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 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 § 15-6-56, a 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.

Tschetter v. Berven · filed 2001-01-17

In reviewing a grant or denial of a summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56, 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 authorized only when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Estate of Trobaugh Ex Rel. Trobaugh v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · filed 2001-03-21(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 when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Full House, Inc. v. Stell · filed 2002-01-30(c)

SDCL 15-6-56(c) provides that summary judgment should be granted when 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 only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the moving party bears that burden, and reasonable inferences favor the nonmoving party.

Jorgenson v. Vener · filed 2002-02-06(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." 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.

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.

Blaha v. Stuard · filed 2002-02-06(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.

When neither party disputes the facts, summary judgment requires a showing that those facts entitle the prevailing party to judgment as a matter of law.

TRI COUNTY LANDFILL ASS'N v. Brule County · filed 2002-03-06(c)

As neither party now argues that questions of fact remain, a prevailing party must show the facts entitle it to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact or of the inferences to be drawn from those facts.

Mueller v. Cedar Shore Resort, Inc. · filed 2002-03-20(c)

Thus, this Court has held that, not only does summary judgment require there be no material facts at issue, but also that there be no genuine issue on the inferences to be drawn from those facts.

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.

Braun v. New Hope Township · filed 2002-06-05(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 [established] 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.

Schwaiger v. Mitchell Radiology Associates, P.C. · filed 2002-08-07(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.

Section 15-6-56(e) requires a party seeking summary judgment to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

State v. Jensen · filed 2003-05-14(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 [established] 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.

Cleveland v. BDL Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2003-05-14(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.

Summary judgment under § 15-6-56 is appropriate when the entire record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Saiz v. Horn · filed 2003-08-06

Summary judgment is appropriate under SDCL 15-6-56, when the entire record reveals that there is no genuine issue on any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a 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.

Consolidated Nutrition, L.C. v. IBP, Inc. · filed 2003-08-27(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 [established] entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.

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

Wulf v. Senst · filed 2003-08-27(c)

Summary judgment is only appropriate when the court determines that the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits of the parties, reveal that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

On summary judgment, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

St. Onge Livestock Co., Ltd. v. Curtis · filed 2002-08-14(c)

But the procedural posture of this case requires that all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

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.

Hedel-Ostrowski v. City of Spearfish · filed 2004-04-21(c)

Summary judgment is proper where, 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).

Summary judgment requires the moving party to show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed favorably to the nonmoving party.

Leslie v. Hy-Vee Foods, Inc. · filed 2004-04-28(b)

On review of summary judgment granted under SDCL 15-6-56(b), this Court: must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and established 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.

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

Flugge v. Flugge · filed 2004-06-02(c)

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.

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.

Titus v. Chapman · filed 2004-09-22(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.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

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.

McMillin v. Mueller · filed 2005-03-23(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). ... The estates did not establish that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the Muellers' intent to injure or the substantial certainty that injury would occur.

A party seeking summary judgment must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Weitzel v. Sioux Valley Heart Partners · filed 2006-05-10(c)

Our standard of review on summary judgment requires this Court to determine whether the moving party has demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue of material fact.

Jones v. Siouxland Surgery Center Ltd. Partnership · filed 2006-11-08(c)

Summary judgment can be granted only when “‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.’” St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Engelmann, 2002 SD 8, ¶15, 639 NW2d 192, 199 (quoting SDCL 15-6-56(c)).

A party seeking summary judgment must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rush v. US BANCORP EQUIPMENT FINANCE · filed 2007-11-14(c)

“When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we decide only whether there were genuine issues of material fact and whether the law was correctly applied.” Heib v. Lehrkamp, 2005 SD 98, ¶19, 704 NW2d 875, 882 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Keystone Plaza Condominiums Ass’n v. Eastep, 2004 SD 28, ¶8, 676 NW2d 842, 846). “We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Toben v. Jeske, 2006 SD 57, ¶9, 718 NW2d 32, 35 (citing Wilson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 83 SD 207, 212, 157 NW2d 19, 21 (1968)). The moving party has the burden of showing “the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Yarcheski v. Reiner, 2003 SD 108, ¶15, 669 NW2d 487, 493 (citing S.D. Dept. of Rev. v. Thiewes, 448 NW2d 1, 2 (SD 1989)).

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.

Tonsager v. Laqua · filed 2008-06-25(c)

Under our familiar standard, "[w]hen reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we decide only whether there were genuine issues of material fact and whether the law was correctly applied." Heib v. Lehrkamp, 2005 SD 98, ¶19, 704 NW2d 875, 882 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Keystone Plaza Condominiums Ass'n v. Eastep, 2004 SD 28, ¶8, 676 NW2d 842, 846). ... The moving party has the burden of showing "the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." Yarcheski v. Reiner, 2003 SD 108, ¶15, 669 NW2d 487, 493 (citing S.D. Dept. of Rev. v. Thiewes, 448 NW2d 1, 2 (SD 1989)).

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.

Cowan Bros., L.L.C. v. American State Bank · filed 2007-12-19(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.

Summary judgment is proper when the law is correctly applied and there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Kirksey v. Grohmann · filed 2008-07-30(c)

Summary judgment is proper when the law is correctly applied and there are no genuine issues of material fact.

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.

Dykstra v. Page Holding Co. · filed 2009-05-20(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.

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.

Janis v. Nash Finch Co. · filed 2010-03-17(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.”

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

Nodak Mutual Insurance Co. v. McDowell · filed 2010-06-30(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.”

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.

Advanced Recycling Systems, LLC v. Southeast Properties Ltd. Partnership · filed 2010-08-18(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.”

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

Bertelsen v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2011-04-06(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.”

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.

Danielson v. Hess · filed 2011-12-07(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.”

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.

Surgical Institute of South Dakota, P.C. v. Sorrell · filed 2012-06-20(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.”

Section 15-6-56(c) requires a court reviewing summary judgment to consider whether reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from undisputed facts, as well as whether the evidence conflicts.

Gabriel v. Bauman · filed 2014-05-21(c)

In reviewing whether the court erred in granting summary judgment, we ask not only whether there is a conflict in the evidence, but also whether the undisputed facts are such that reasonable minds might differ in interpreting them in arriving at different conclusions on whether the defendant was willful, wanton, or reckless.

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.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Barton Solvents, Inc. · filed 2014-10-01(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “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.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

An order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Matter of Matheny Family Trust · filed 2015-01-28(c)

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and determine “whether there were any genuine issues of material fact and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Law Capital, Inc. v. Kettering, 2013 S.D. 66, ¶ 10, 836 N.W.2d 642, 645 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Horne v. Crozier, 1997 S.D. 65, ¶ 5, 565 N.W.2d 50, 52).

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.

Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. v. Zellmer · filed 2015-05-13(c)

Summary judgment is proper where[] 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) 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.

Dowling Family Partnership v. Midland Farms, LLC · filed 2015-06-15(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.”

Section 15-6-56(c) allows a court to withdraw an initial summary judgment order and permit briefing on a statute of limitations defense when the movant has not yet shown entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wichman v. Shabino · filed 2014-07-09(c)

Because the court concluded that Mary Ann was not yet entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, it did not err in withdrawing its order so that the parties could brief the statute of limitations issue.

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.

Nicolay v. Stukel · filed 2017-07-26(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), the moving party must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ridley v. Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. · filed 2019-08-07(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 appropriate when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Aqreva, LLC v. Eide Bailly, LLP · filed 2020-10-28(c)

Summary judgment is appropriate “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 subsection (c), the court must view evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and may grant summary judgment only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Powers v. Turner Cnty. · filed 2020-11-04(c)

Rather, evidence must be viewed most favorably to the nonmoving party when determining “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.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

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.

Syrstad v. Syrstad · filed 2021-12-15(c)

Summary judgment is proper “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.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

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.

Burgi v. East Winds Court, Inc. · filed 2022-01-26(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.

McCoy v. McCallum · filed 2022-07-27(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 [established] 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. Estate of Campbell · filed 2023-03-15(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.”

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

Parmely Trust v. Magness · filed 2023-09-20(c)

A motion for summary judgment will be granted if two conditions are met: (1) “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact”; and (2) “the moving party is entitled to a 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.

Huston v. Martin · filed 2018-10-10(c)

Under our well-settled standard of review, “[s]ummary judgment is proper where, 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.”

Summary judgment may resolve insurance contract interpretation and common law insurance doctrine questions when the material facts are undisputed.

Nationwide Agribusiness v. Fitch · filed 2022-06-15(c)

At issue here is the interpretation of an insurance contract and a common law insurance doctrine—legal questions which, when applied to the undisputed facts, are amenable to summary judgment.

Under § 15-6-56(c), the moving party must show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Two Eagle v. Ecare · filed 2025-02-05(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.”

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.

Anderson Industries v. Thermal Intelligence · filed 2025-08-13(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), review of summary judgment asks whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Trigger Energy Holdings v. Stevens · filed 2025-12-22(c)

Our task “is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.”

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.

Rti, LLC v. Pro Engineering · filed 2025-11-12(c)

Summary judgment is proper where, 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.

Summary judgment requires no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Ivey & Kornmann v. Welk · filed 2017-06-28(c)

Summary judgment may 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” SDCL 15-6-56(c).

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment when undisputed facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law, even under either possible interpretation of a contract term.

Ramesbotham v. Farmers Elevator Co. · filed 1988-08-31(c)

In conclusion, under either buyer’s or seller’s arguments in this case, the trial court appropriately entered summary judgment for seller. If time was of the essence in buyer’s payment obligation of January 2, 1981, buyer clearly defaulted in not making payment on that date and judgment for seller was proper as a matter of law. If time was not of the essence in buyer’s obligation, buyer defaulted in not making payment within a reasonable time and again judgment for seller was appropriate as a matter of law.

When a court treats a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, it must notify the parties and give them a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent evidence.

Jensen Ranch, Inc. v. Marsden · filed 1989-05-10

We stated in Norwest Bank that a court which treats a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment must advise the parties of its intent and give all parties an opportunity to present matters pertinent to such a motion by SDCL 15-6-56. Here, the court did not provide the parties with a reasonable opportunity to present any pertinent material, as provided by SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5). The parties thus were not afforded an occasion to file affidavits or other evidence which may have controverted the court's conclusion that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Such is reversible error under Norwest Bank and Olson.

A party seeking summary judgment on an affirmative defense must establish the defense as an uncontroverted fact.

Cody v. Leapley · filed 1991-09-25

As such, under SDCL 15-6-8(c) it is in the nature of an affirmative defense and must not only be pled, but to be granted relief under SDCL 15-6-56, it must be established as a matter of uncontroverted fact.

An opposing affidavit based on personal knowledge and admissible facts may establish a genuine factual issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Holecek v. Sundby · filed 2007-12-12(e)

The affidavit was executed with “personal knowledge” and “set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence”; therefore, it was an appropriate form of affidavit supporting his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

On appeal from summary judgment, the court determines whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Wolff v. Secretary of the South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks Department · filed 1996-03-06

In a summary judgment case, this Court's, "task on appeal is to determine only whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied." Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760 (S.D.1989).

Under subsection (c), appellate review of summary judgment asks whether the moving party showed no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Alverson v. Northwestern National Casualty Co. · filed 1997-02-12(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.

Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the law supports the ruling; an appellate court may affirm on any legal basis.

Kobbeman v. Oleson · filed 1998-02-25(c)

Under our familiar standard for reviewing summary judgments, we decide only whether genuine issues of material fact existed and whether the law was correctly applied. If any legal basis emerges to support the trial court's ruling, we will affirm.

On review 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.

Spenner v. CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA · filed 1998-06-03(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.

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

Walther v. KPKA Meadowlands Ltd. Partnership · filed 1998-07-15(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.

On review of summary judgment under subsection (c), the court determines whether the movant showed no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Campion v. Parkview Apartments · filed 1999-01-27(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), appellate review of summary judgment asks whether the moving party showed no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Peterson v. Hohm · filed 2000-02-23(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.

On appeal from summary judgment under § 15-6-56(c), the court determines whether the moving party showed no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Accounts Management, Inc. v. Nelson · filed 2003-05-21(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 [established] entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.

Review of summary judgment asks whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the law was correctly applied.

Schulte v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2005-06-15(c)

Under our familiar standard of review in summary judgment cases, we decide only whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the law was correctly applied.

Appellate review of summary judgment under § 15-6-56(c) asks whether the movant showed no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

North Star Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rasmussen · filed 2007-06-14(c)

Our standard of review for summary judgment is well established: 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.

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.

Anderson v. First Century Federal Credit Union · filed 2007-07-03(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 § 15-6-56(c), review of summary judgment asks whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the law was correctly applied.

Burley v. Kytec Innovative Sports Equipment, Inc. · filed 2007-08-01(c)

In reviewing whether summary judgment was properly granted, “we decide only whether there were genuine issues of material fact and whether the law was correctly applied.” Toben v. Jeske, 2006 SD 57, ¶9, 718 NW2d 32, 35 (quoting Heib v. Lehrkamp, 2005 SD 98, ¶19, 704 NW2d 875, 882 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Keystone Plaza Condominiums Ass’n v. Eastep, 2004 SD 28, ¶8, 676 NW2d 842, 846)).

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

Lindskov v. Lindskov · filed 2011-07-06(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.”

On review of summary judgment, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the court decides whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether legal questions were decided correctly.

Jorgensen Farms, Inc. v. Country Pride Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2012-11-20(c)

In reviewing a trial court’s grant or denial of summary judgment under SDCL 15-6-56(c), we must view evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party and decide both “‘whether the moving party has demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact’” and whether the trial court correctly decided all legal questions.

A summary judgment ruling is reviewed de novo to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

AMCO Insurance Co. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. · filed 2014-04-16(c)

Similarly, we review de novo whether the moving party was entitled to summary 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.

Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Medical Center · filed 2016-04-13(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.”

A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal.

Healy Ranch v. Mines · filed 2022-08-03

“We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review.”

Summary judgment may be granted in a negligence action when the duty question is resolved in the defendant’s favor.

Estate of Shuck v. Perkins County · filed 1998-04-01(c)

While negligence actions are generally not suited for summary judgment, such a result is proper when the duty question is resolved in the defendant's favor.

Summary judgment is proper in a negligence action when the court determines as a matter of law that the defendant owed no duty.

Peterson v. Spink Electric Cooperative, Inc. · filed 1998-06-10(c)

Summary judgment is proper in negligence cases if it is determined as a matter of law that no duty exists.

Summary judgment based on assumption of risk cannot stand if the moving party fails to establish any one of the defense’s three elements.

Ray v. Downes · filed 1998-04-22(c)

As Waldner fails to convince us the record supports his contention on the first factor of assumption of the risk, this failure to establish any one of the above three criteria is "fatal to this defense" as a basis for upholding a summary judgment. Westover, supra . As such we need not review the second and third factors.

Section 15-6-56 does not bar oral testimony at summary judgment hearings, but such testimony should be allowed only rarely and for clarification or correction.

Millard v. City of Sioux Falls · filed 1999-02-10

SDCL 15-6-56 addresses the procedural rules of motions for summary judgment, but it is silent on the issue of oral testimony at hearings on such motions. However, SDCL 15-6-43(e) addresses the permissibility of oral testimony at motions’ hearings. ... However, oral testimony at summary judgment motions’ hearings should be allowed only in rare circumstances and for the exclusive purposes of clarification or correction.

Section 15-6-56(c) does not require a supplemental summary judgment hearing on an added claim when the relevant facts are before the court, the issue has been fully briefed, and the parties have nothing further of substance to offer.

Harris v. Jefferson Partners, L.P. · filed 2002-10-23(c)

To hold otherwise, we would require trial courts to conduct supplemental summary judgment hearings, even when the parties have nothing to add. All the relevant facts were before the court at the time it made its final decision, and the matter had been fully briefed by counsel, with both initial and supplemental briefs.

Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when a case turns on interpreting written documents, because their interpretation is a legal issue rather than a factual one.

McCroden v. Case · filed 1999-11-23(c)

Cases involving the interpretation of written documents are particularly appropriate for disposition by summary judgment, such interpretation being a legal issue rather than a factual one.

Summary judgment is particularly appropriate when interpreting a written document presents a legal issue rather than a factual one.

McGroden v. Case · filed 1999-11-23(c)

Cases involving the interpretation of written documents are particularly appropriate for disposition by summary judgment, such interpretation being a legal issue rather than a factual one.

When both parties move for summary judgment, both motions must be denied if genuine issues of fact or of the inferences drawn from the facts remain.

Foster v. Foster · filed 2003-12-23(c)

Both motions must be denied if the court detects genuine issues of fact or genuine issues on the inferences discernible from the facts.

Sanctions under subsection (g) for bad-faith or delay-motivated summary-judgment affidavits are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Prunty Construction, Inc. v. City of Canistota · filed 2004-06-09(g)

Similarly, we review sanctions under SDCL 15-6-56(g) under the abuse of discretion standard.

Section 15-6-56(c) treats a summary judgment ruling as interlocutory, so a denial of summary judgment does not bind the trial court under the law of the case doctrine.

Grynberg Exploration Corp. v. Puckett · filed 2004-06-09(c)

Finally, SDCL 15-6-56(c) provides that a summary judgment is “interlocutory in character.”

Section 15-6-56 permits summary judgment on a legally inadequate contract claim alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; such claims are not always jury questions.

Farm Credit Services of America v. Dougan · filed 2005-08-24(c)

We have never held that these contract claims are always jury questions. On the contrary, summary judgment is a preferred method for disposing of any legally inadequate claim.

Section 15-6-56(c) confines the summary judgment record to qualifying materials properly on file; documents submitted only as attachments to a trial brief are not evidence properly before the court.

Hall v. State ex rel. South Dakota Department of Transportation · filed 2006-03-15(c)

Therefore, the trial briefs were erroneously included’ in the record submitted to this Court. The only evidence properly before the trial court — and therefore before this Court — was the affidavit of Marlyn Erickson, the affidavit of John Hae-der, and the affidavit of Dennis Landguth and its attachments.

Section 15-6-56(c) confines summary judgment to the pleadings, filed discovery, admissions, and affidavits properly before the court; material attached only to trial briefs is outside the record.

Hall v. STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. · filed 2006-03-15(c)

Therefore, the trial briefs were erroneously included in the record submitted to this Court. The only evidence properly before the trial court—and therefore before this Court—was the affidavit of Marlyn Erickson, the affidavit of John Haeder, and the affidavit of Dennis Landguth and its attachments. SDCL 15-6-56(c) (allowing summary judgment to “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 as to any material fact”) (emphasis added).

Section 15-6-56(c) permits summary judgment without a hearing when the parties had an opportunity to submit materials showing a genuine issue of material fact and did not identify one.

Clay v. Weber · filed 2007-05-02(c)

But more fundamentally, we note that Inmates do not argue that they were denied the opportunity to file any pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits demonstrating the existence of questions of material fact on any issue. See SDCL 15-6-56(c). ... Considering their response and the fact that the circuit court may hear evidence on motions by affidavit, oral testimony or deposition, SDCL 15-6-43(e), the lack of a hearing did not deny Inmates an opportunity to oppose summary judgment by identifying material issues of disputed fact.

Section 15-6-56 does not require a claimant to prove every element of a claim to survive summary judgment when specific, probative evidence shows a genuine issue for trial.

Stern Oil Co. v. Brown · filed 2012-07-03

Furthermore, Brown was not required to prove all elements of fraudulent inducement in order to survive summary judgment.

A party moving for summary judgment limits the record available for review to the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions, and any affidavits on file.

State v. Wayfair Inc. · filed 2017-09-13(c)

But Sellers moved for summary judgment and by doing so, limited the record available for review. See SDCL 15-6-56(c) (limiting the record on a motion for summary judgment to “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any[.]”).

A party opposing summary judgment must present evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact; unsupported speculation about causation is insufficient.

Krsnak v. Brant Lake Sanitary Dist. · filed 2018-12-19(c)

Their suspicion that the coliform in their well originated from the BLSD pond, without evidence of the source of the contamination, merely raises unsupported conclusions and speculation.

Section 15-6-56(c) requires evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact; suspicion alone cannot defeat summary judgment.

Dt-Trak Consulting, Inc. v. Kolda · filed 2022-08-17(c)

Because DT-Trak’s suspicions alone are insufficient to create a dispute of material fact that would avoid summary judgment on Count 1, and because Kolda is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed material facts present in the record, Kolda is entitled to summary judgment on Count 1.

Section 15-6-56 prohibits a court from weighing conflicting evidence when deciding summary judgment.

Turgeon v. City of Spearfish · filed 2026-04-08

Weighing conflicting evidence regarding the City’s implied acceptance is incongruent with our summary judgment standards.

Section 15-6-56(c)(1) requires a party moving for summary judgment on or after January 1, 2007, to attach a statement of undisputed material facts to the motion.

Discover Bank v. Stanley · filed 2008-11-12(c)(1)

The plain meaning of SDCL 15-6-56(c) leaves no doubt that the moving party must file a statement of undisputed material facts with a motion for summary judgment filed on or after January 1, 2007.

Section 15-6-56(c)(1) requires a party moving for summary judgment to attach a statement of undisputed material facts; a party joining the motion and supporting memorandum joins that statement by implication unless the joinder specifies a limitation.

Powers v. Powers and Prevailing Winds, LLC · filed 2022-05-11(c)(1)

Here, Prevailing Wind was the moving party and was thus required to, and did, include a statement of undisputed material facts as required by SDCL 15- 6-56(c)(1). By joining Prevailing Wind’s motion for summary judgment and its memorandum in support, Dennis thereafter joined by implication Prevailing Wind’s accompanying statement of undisputed material facts, many of which were referenced in the memorandum. While joining parties could specify that they are not joining certain arguments or statements made in the other party’s motion, brief, or the accompanying documents, no such limitation was set forth in Dennis’s joinder here.

In a public-figure libel action, the clear and convincing evidence standard for actual malice applies when deciding whether the plaintiff can withstand summary judgment.

Saathoff v. Kuhlman · filed 2009-03-18(c)

This higher evidentiary burden to prove “actual malice” extends not only to the proof required at trial, but also in resisting summary judgment.

Section 15-6-56(c)(3) deems a moving party’s stated material facts admitted when the opposing party does not specifically controvert them in its own statement.

Hass v. Wentzlaff · filed 2012-06-20(c)(3)

General arguments at the summary judgment hearing do not satisfy the requirement that Hass specifically respond to the insurance companies’ statement of material facts. By failing to respond, all facts asserted by the insurance companies are deemed admitted.

Under § 15-6-56(c)(3), material facts asserted in support of summary judgment are deemed admitted unless the opposing party controverts them.

Gades v. Meyer Modernizing Co. · filed 2015-06-03(c)(3)

Any material fact asserted by the moving party in support of the motion for summary judgment is deemed admitted by the nonmoving party unless controverted.

On appeal, § 15-6-56(c) calls for de novo review of whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Law Capital, Inc. v. Kettering · filed 2013-08-21(c)

As in all summary judgment appeals, we review de novo whether there were any genuine issues of material fact and whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SDCL 15-6-56(c); Horne v. Crozier, 1997 S.D. 65, ¶ 5, 565 N.W.2d 50, 52.

A court considering summary judgment on a ground the movant did not raise must give the opposing party adequate notice and an opportunity to present evidence; prejudicial failure to do so requires reversal.

Leonhardt v. Leonhardt · filed 2012-10-17(c)

Terry and Cindy have shown that they were prejudiced by the circuit court’s failure to provide them with notice that it would consider the statute of frauds during the summary judgment hearing.

Before granting summary judgment on grounds the parties did not raise, a court should give them notice and an opportunity to develop the record; lack of notice warrants reversal when it causes prejudice.

Estate of Schmeling · filed 2024-04-10(c)

Based on the parties’ submissions and arguments, the Contestants were not on notice that they needed to submit evidence to show a material issue of fact in dispute on the other elements of their undue influence claim. However, the Contestants must also show they were prejudiced. ... Because the court’s decision was based on a record that was not fully developed, and because the other elements of the undue influence claim had not been raised by either party in the respective summary judgment motions, the Contestants were prejudiced when they were deprived of the ability to bring ... forward evidence that would be relevant to these other issues. We thus conclude that the circuit court’s error is not harmless.

Section 15-6-56(f) does not apply to a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under § 15-6-12(b)(1), because summary judgment addresses the merits.

Alone v. C. Brunsch, Inc. · filed 2019-07-10(f)

However, SDCL 15-6-56(f) does not apply here because a motion under SDCL 15-6-12(b)(1) cannot be analyzed under the merits-based summary judgment provisions of SDCL 15-6-56.

Section 15-6-56(b) does not require a party to respond to a summary judgment motion that does not name that party, and the resulting ruling does not bind that party.

Excel Underground, Inc. v. Brant Lake Sanitary District · filed 2020-04-01(b)

SDCL 15-6-56(b) states a party may move “for summary judgment in his favor . . ..” (Emphasis added.) It contains no language expanding the obligation to respond to all parties in the lawsuit whether they are named in the motion or not.

A request for more time to obtain discovery or evidence under Rule 56(f) is a response to a summary judgment motion and is subject to § 15-6-56(c)’s response deadline.

Coyle v. McFarland · filed 2025-11-12(c)

A request for more time to conduct discovery or obtain affidavits and deposition testimony pursuant to Rule 56(f) falls into the category of a “response” to a summary judgment motion and is, therefore, subject to the timeframes in SDCL 15-6-56(c).