Court Opinion

ID: 9738975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:06:28.231996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:09.523010
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(specially concurring).
I write specially to point out that the arguments of Du-al Manufacturing may be valid against Simpsons, as the sub-contractor who was making the repairs from time to time, but not against Sioux Falls Construction, as general contractor. Du-al should have reached a more detailed agree-, ment with Sioux Falls Construction, filed same in court, and updated its status on an annual basis. Even though representatives of Du-al were dealing directly with representatives of the other companies, it remains the attorney’s responsibility to protect the court record against dismissal for lack of prosecution. Therefore, we have no alternative but to dismiss. SDCL 15-6-41(b); Holmoe v. Reuss, 403 N.W.2d 30 (S.D.1987).