Court Opinion

ID: 9732510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:23:41.825388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:26.082335
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I write specially to point out that: By distinguishing this case from Bank of Ho-*733ven v. Rausch, 449 N.W.2d 263 (S.D.1989) and Black Hills Jewelry Mfg. v. Felco Jewel lnd., 336 N.W.2d 153 (S.D.1983), we are avoiding the “serious mistakes” described in Bank of Hoven, 449 N.W.2d at 267 (Sabers, J., dissenting), and the “excessive use of res judicata” referred to in my special writing in Bruntz v. Rutherford, 451 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D.1990) (Sabers, J., concurring specially) as joined by Justice Miller. See also my special concurrence in Sioux Enterprises v. Tri-State Refining, 456 N.W.2d 774 (S.D.1990) as joined by Justices Morgan and Miller. I agree with this writing and with the statement that “we should not” “interpret[] the doctrine of res judicata too broadly.”