South Dakota Supreme Court· 7/24/2002
SDDS, Inc. v. State
Citations
- 2002 SD 90
- 650 N.W.2d 1
- 2002 S.D. LEXIS 107
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that First English means “the [compensation] remedy does not depend on statutory facilitation”
- recognizing ……………… 20 that First English means “the [compensation] remedy does not depend on statutory facilitation
- “South English makes clear that the Fifth Amendment Takings Dakota’s sovereign immunity is not a bar to SDDS’s Fifth Clause is a self-executing remedy, notwithstanding sovereign Amendment takings claim.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Konenkamp, Gilbertson, Amundson, Miller, Anderson, Lee, Sabers, Zinter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Dlx, Inc. v. Commonwealth of KentuckySixth Circuit· 2004-10-28· cited 306×
- Jachetta v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 2011-08-01· cited 107×
- Benson v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2006-01-24· cited 42×
- Manning v. Mining & Minerals Division of the Energy, Minerals, & Natural Resources DepartmentNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2006-06-01· cited 30×
- Young v. OurySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2013-01-17· cited 6×
- Young v. OuryNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2013-01-16· cited 6×
- Manning v. Mining & Minerals Division of the Energy, Minerals, & Natural Resources DepartmentNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2004-05-11· cited 4×
- Pourier v. SD DEPT. OF REVENUE & REGULATIONSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2010-02-03· cited 3×
- Pourier v. South Dakota Department of Revenue & RegulationSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 2010-02-03· cited 3×
- Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. RoundsD. South Dakota· 2006-03-28
- Manning v. ENERGY, MINERALSNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2006-06-29
- DLX Inc v. Comwlth KYSixth Circuit· 2004-08-26
- Johnny Partain v. State of TexasTex. App. Ct., 15th Dist.· 2025-03-25
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court· 1978-10-02· cited 3,324×
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court· 1992-06-29· cited 2,333×
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court· 1922-12-11· cited 1,990×
- Alden v. MaineSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 1,967×
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense BoardSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 1,377×
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1987-06-09· cited 1,264×
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 1,023×
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court· 2002-04-23· cited 862×
- United States v. DickinsonSupreme Court· 1947-06-16· cited 505×
- United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court· 1933-01-09· cited 444×
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1949-06-27· cited 443×
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings BankSupreme Court· 1999-06-23· cited 436×
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantFederal Circuit· 1990-07-06· cited 301×
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San DiegoSupreme Court· 1981-03-24· cited 231×
- City of Austin v. TeagueTexas Supreme Court· 1978-07-26· cited 151×
- United States v. Pewee Coal Co.Supreme Court· 1951-04-30· cited 139×
- Reich v. CollinsSupreme Court· 1994-12-06· cited 127×
- Skip Kirchdorfer, Inc. v. United StatesFederal Circuit· 1993-12-10· cited 81×
- In Re Sdds, Inc., a South Dakota CorporationEighth Circuit· 1996-10-03· cited 69×
- In Re Application of SDDS, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1991-06-26· cited 53×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.