State v. Kordonowy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a construction of 23A-44-5.1 which allows the State unlimited time to file an information after a defendant makes a first appearance on a complaint would “effectively defeat the purpose of the 180 day rule, and cannot be accepted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Sorensen
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-07-07· cited 14×
• State v. Webb
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1995-11-01· cited 14×
• State v. Hetzel
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-07-14· cited 5×
• State v. Stepner
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-03-31· cited 5×
• State v. Sorenson
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1999-07-07

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Petition of Famous Brands, Inc.
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1984-04-25· cited 186×
• State v. Heisinger
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1977-04-22· cited 66×
• State v. Lodermeier
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1992-02-26· cited 51×
• State v. Shilvock-Havird
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1991-06-26· cited 48×
• Honomichl v. State
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1983-04-20· cited 47×
• State v. Hoffman
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1987-07-15· cited 43×
• State v. Cooper
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1988-03-23· cited 34×
• State v. Tiedeman
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1988-12-07· cited 25×
• State v. Anderson
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1988-01-06· cited 17×
• State v. Myers
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1987-08-19· cited 16×
• In re Gibbs
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1927-07-19· cited 12×
• State v. Ven Osdel
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1990-11-21· cited 11×
• State v. Eidahl
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1992-06-10· cited 6×
• Crisp v. Schultis
  South Dakota Supreme Court· 1993-11-03· cited 5×