Schwartz v. Palachuk

4 Citing cases

  1. Veblen Dist. v. Multi–Cmty. Coop. Dairy

    2012 S.D. 26 (S.D. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    [¶ 21.] “The authority of the trial court concerning sanctions is flexible and allows the court ‘broad discretion with regard to sanctions imposed thereunder for failure to comply with discovery orders.’ ” Schwartz v. Palachuk, 1999 S.D. 100, ¶ 23, 597 N.W.2d 442, 447 (quoting Chittenden & Eastman Co. v. Smith, 286 N.W.2d 314, 316 (S.D.1979)). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions.

  2. Storm v. Durr

    2003 S.D. 6 (S.D. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    In Storm, the plaintiffs were warned that failure to abide by the order would result in dismissal but chose to disregard the order.

    Those who totally ignore them . . . should not be heard to complain that a sanction was too severe." Schwartz v. Palachuk, 1999 SD 100, ¶ 23, 597 N.W.2d 442, 447. [¶ 18.] To date, Storm has failed to show an absence of good cause to dismiss the action.

  3. Hansen v. Shields

    CIV. 18-5041-JLV (D.S.D. Jul. 29, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    But for her defensive driving response, Mrs. Hansen's vehicle would have been drawn into the collision. Mrs. Hansen contemporaneously observed the collision causing serious injury to her brother. Nielson, 597 N.W.2d 442. Her allegation of emotional distress is based on her fear that her brother may suffer potentially serious injuries or death and was not caused by any "fear for . . . her own safety."

  4. Eischen v. Wayne Township

    2008 S.D. 2 (S.D. 2008)   Cited 2 times
    Finding dismissal for failure to prosecute “operates as dismissal with prejudice as an adjudication on the merits unless the circuit court expressly states otherwise”

    [¶ 25.] In attempting to establish a three-year requisite period of inactivity for dismissal under SDCL 15-6-41(b), Eischens attempt to distinguish Storm v. Durr, 2003 SD 6, 657 N.W.2d 34, Jenco, Inc., 2003 SD 79, 666 N.W.2d 763 and Schwartz v. Palachuk, 1999 SD 100, 597 N.W.2d 442, where the defendant's motions for dismissal was granted with shorter periods of delay. Eischens argue that the dismissals in these cases were granted because the plaintiff's disregarded or otherwise failed to follow a court order.