You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Hauswirth v. Hartigan

Citations: 296 N.W.2d 535; 1980 S.D. LEXIS 392Docket: 12847

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court; September 17, 1980; South Dakota; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of South Dakota dismissed an appeal in the case of Jack Hauswirth v. Gil S. Hartigan regarding a breach of contract claim. Hauswirth, the plaintiff, sought $800 for painting services rendered, initially filed in small claims court. Hartigan, the defendant, transferred the case to circuit court for a jury trial under SDCL 15-39-17. The court noted that jurisdiction must be evident from the record, and according to SDCL 15-39-23, it lacks authority to hear appeals from jury trials following such transfers from small claims court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as the court had no jurisdiction to proceed.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appeals from Transfers from Small Claims Court

Application: Under SDCL 15-39-23, the court does not have the authority to hear appeals from cases that have been transferred from small claims court to circuit court for a jury trial. The appeal in this case was dismissed because it originated from a jury trial following such a transfer.

Reasoning: According to SDCL 15-39-23, it lacks authority to hear appeals from jury trials following such transfers from small claims court.

Jurisdiction Requirement in Appeals

Application: The court must have clear jurisdiction based on the record to hear an appeal. In this case, the Supreme Court of South Dakota found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because jurisdiction was not evident from the record.

Reasoning: The court noted that jurisdiction must be evident from the record, and according to SDCL 15-39-23, it lacks authority to hear appeals from jury trials following such transfers from small claims court.