Court Opinion

ID: 9525131
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:00:14.493384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:07.255448
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I join in the majority opinion’s decision insofar as it deals with the merits of the ease. I write specially only to express my view that it is not necessary for us to resort to the formalities of judicial notice as set forth in our rules of evidence in order to accept appellee’s counsel’s representation that appellee and her boyfriend were married on December 26, 1982, a fact that plaintiff acknowledges the existence of. Just as we did in Krueger v. Stevens, 90 S.D. 641, 244 N.W.2d 763 (1976), we can accept this fact for purposes of our decision. The rule set forth in Pearson v. Adams, 279 N.W.2d 674 (S.D.1979), applies to matters up to the time that the record is settled for appellate purposes and has no application to events occurring after that date.