Court Opinion

ID: 9690035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:52:04.039426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.885559
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I likewise dissent and specially join the dissent of Justice Amundson. Additionally, I dissent for the reason that the law should remain settled in South Dakota concerning the scope of review of depositions. When reviewing evidence presented by deposition, we do not apply the clearly erroneous rule but review that testimony as though presented here for the first time. Guthmiller v. S.D. Dept. of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 586 (S.D.1993); Day v. John Morrell & Co., 490 N.W.2d 720 (S.D.1992); Lien v. Miracle Span Corp., 456 N.W.2d 563 (S.D.1990).