Court Opinion

ID: 9658093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:46:29.09566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.460909
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse on the question of whether summary judgment was proper because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to Cody’s ownership of these items of personal property. The defendants failed to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, contrary to McKinney v. Pioneer Life Ins. Co., 465 N.W.2d 192, 193-194 (S.D.1991), and State Dept. of Rev. v. Thiewes, 448 N.W.2d 1, 2 (S.D.1989). Therefore, summary judgment was improper. Groseth Int’l, Inc. v. Ten*267neco, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 159, 172 (S.D.1987); Bego v. Gordon, 407 N.W.2d 801, 812 (S.D.1987).
It would even seem that plaintiff’s ownership was sufficiently established to withstand a motion for directed verdict if this were in fact a hearing or a trial instead of summary judgment as claimed.