South Dakota calls the opening paper a complaint / summons and complaint. Self-represented parties file in Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims). Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need South Dakota counsel. That is what separates South Dakota filing a lawsuit without a lawyer from a generic national summary. Read South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure before the background sections below. E-filing: Odyssey File & Serve (South Dakota). Self-represented e-filing is available in many Circuit Courts; small claims remains clerk-assisted. Service: SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues). Small claims: small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court (generally up to $12,000).
What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
Self-represented litigants lose cases when they confuse sources of law. Use these definitions when you research on LawDiver:
| Source | What it is | How you use it in South Dakota |
|---|---|---|
| Statute | A law enacted by the legislature (or Congress) | Creates rights, duties, damages caps, notice periods, and causes of action |
| Case (opinion) | A written decision of a court resolving a dispute | Interprets statutes and rules; binds lower courts in the same hierarchy when it is controlling precedent |
| Court rule | A procedural regulation adopted by the judiciary | Tells you how to plead, serve, discover, and try a case — e.g. South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Regulation | A rule issued by an executive agency under statutory authority | Matters when your claim involves licensed industries, benefits, or administrative prerequisites |
| Local rule / administrative order | County- or court-specific filing practice | Often controls e-filing mandates, cover sheets, and hearing calendars |
A winning South Dakota theory usually needs all three of: (1) a substantive statute or common-law claim, (2) a pleading that satisfies the civil rules, and (3) admissible evidence under the South Dakota Rules of Evidence.
Can you litigate pro se in South Dakota?
Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need South Dakota counsel.
Pro se (sometimes in propria persona or self-represented) means you speak for yourself. Courts often construe pro se papers liberally on formatting, but they do not invent claims you failed to plead, excuse missed statutes of limitation, or waive service defects. If a corporation is on the other side with counsel, you will still be held to the South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
South Dakota Unified Judicial System self-help pages publish small-claims forms.
South Dakota opinions on pro se practice
DAKOTA TRUCK UNDERWRITERS, Petitioners and Appellants, and Travelers Insurance Company, Petiti — Gilbertson, J
…of Army, 867 F.2d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir.1989). In Warren, the pro se plaintiff filed his complaint within the time requirements of the applicable statute of limitations, but due to confusing language in the procedures provided to the plaintiff by the government, the plaintiff did not name the correct government official as the defendant. Id. at 1157-58. The case was dismissed by…
Practitioners open DAKOTA TRUCK UNDERWRITERS, Petitioners and Appellants, and Travelers Insurance Company, Petiti — Gilbertson, J when South Dakota pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "of Army, 867 F.2d 1156, 1160 (8th Cir.1989). In Warren, the pro se plaintiff filed his complaint within the time requirements of the applicable statute of limitations, but due to confusing language in the procedures provided to the plaintiff by the government, the plaintiff did n" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
George FEREBEE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Steven HOBART, Respondent and Appellee; George Ferebee, Petitioner and
…advice from counsel in his litigation, most of his work was pro se while Hobart retained counsel and incurred extensive attorney’s fees. [¶ 5.] Ultimately, the trial court denied a motion by Ferebee to dismiss Hobart’s protection order and awarded Hobart attorney’s fees related to the motion. This generated a number of additional pro se motions by Ferebee and, eventually, his a…
South Dakota opinions such as George FEREBEE, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Steven HOBART, Respondent and Appellee; George Ferebee, Petitioner and are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "Hobart retained counsel and incurred extensive attorney’s fees. [¶ 5.] Ultimately, the trial court denied a motion by Ferebee to dismiss Hobart’s protection order and awarded Hobart attorney’s fees related to the motion." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
M. Irene OESTERLING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard W. OESTERLING, Defendant and Appellee
…how cause order was issued and served, and husband appeared pro se on January 21, 1983. On February 15, 1983, the trial judge sent a letter to husband and to wife’s attorney to provide notice that a further hearing was set for March 28, 1983. There are no transcripts of these hearings. From statements made in the record by wife’s attorney and by the trial judge, which describe…
South Dakota opinions such as M. Irene OESTERLING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard W. OESTERLING, Defendant and Appellee are cited where pro se is disputed. The court stated: "January 21, 1983. On February 15, 1983, the trial judge sent a letter to husband and to wife’s attorney to provide notice that a further hearing was set for March 28, 1983. There are no transcripts of these hearings." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The PEOPLE of the State of South Dakota, Ex Rel SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES in the Interests of
…nt at the hearing on the motion to withdraw. Mother filed a pro se motion for a continuance to obtain counsel. That motion was denied. The trial court adjudicated J.G.R. an abused or neglected child through the acts and/or omissions of mother.[1] [¶ 4.] After additional attorneys appeared for mother, this matter was set for a dispositional hearing. Mother was eventually represe…
On pro se, The PEOPLE of the State of South Dakota, Ex Rel SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES in the Interests of speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Mother filed a pro se motion for a continuance to obtain counsel. That motion was denied. The trial court adjudicated J.G.R. an abused or neglected child through the acts and/or omissions of mother.[1] [¶ 4." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Michael and Maggie SMITH, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. RUSTIC HOME BUILDERS, LLC, and Jay Driesen, Individually
…st impression, we consider whether an individual may appear pro se to represent an LLC. “In South Dakota, a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation who is not a licensed attorney is not permitted to appear pro se to represent a corporation.” Sunflour R.R., Inc. v. Paulson, 2003 S.D. 122, ¶ 9, 670 N.W.2d 518, 521. Although “[a] limited liability company is not a corpor…
Practitioners open Michael and Maggie SMITH, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. RUSTIC HOME BUILDERS, LLC, and Jay Driesen, Individually when South Dakota pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "LLC. “In South Dakota, a director, officer or shareholder of a corporation who is not a licensed attorney is not permitted to appear pro se to represent a corporation.” Sunflour R.R., Inc. v. Paulson, 2003 S.D. 122, ¶ 9, 670 N.W.2d 518, 521." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
SUNFLOUR RAILROAD, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Eugene PAULSON, and Heartland Organic Foods, Inc., a South
SABERS, Justice. [¶ 1.] Eugene Paulson (Paulson), acting pro se on behalf of himself and Heartland Organic Foods, Inc. (Heartland), appeals from a judgment entered against Paulson and Heartland. Paulson and Heartland also appeal the dismissal of their counterclaim against Sunflour Railroad, Inc. (Sunflour). FACTS [¶ 2.] Paulson and Heartland own property adjacent to a railro…
Practitioners open SUNFLOUR RAILROAD, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Eugene PAULSON, and Heartland Organic Foods, Inc., a South when South Dakota pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "SABERS, Justice. [¶ 1.] Eugene Paulson (Paulson), acting pro se on behalf of himself and Heartland Organic Foods, Inc. (Heartland), appeals from a judgment entered against Paulson and Heartland." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Kathy L. WEBB, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Anthony E. WEBB, Defendant and Appellant
…f child support from Anthony since 1991. Anthony, who acted pro se and appeared telephonically, did not testify. He claimed that he did not want to testify because he had not been subpoenaed. [¶ 4.] The circuit court found that Anthony had not paid his child support obligation in the amount of $36,917.56. When pre-judgment interest was added, the total amount of the judgment ca…
Practitioners open Kathy L. WEBB, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Anthony E. WEBB, Defendant and Appellant when South Dakota pro se turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Anthony since 1991. Anthony, who acted pro se and appeared telephonically, did not testify. He claimed that he did not want to testify because he had not been subpoenaed. [¶ 4.] The circuit court found that Anthony had not paid his child support obligation in the amount of $36,917." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Role of the judge and the jury
- The judge decides questions of law: what the statute means, whether a pleading states a claim, which evidence is admissible, and how the jury (if any) is instructed. In bench trials and most small-claims matters, the judge also finds the facts.
- The jury decides disputed questions of fact in jury-eligible civil cases when a timely demand is made and any jury fee is paid.
- Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.
Practical tip: decide before filing whether you want a jury. Late demands are often waived. Small-claims paths (small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court) usually trade speed for no jury and limited discovery.
A concrete South Dakota scenario
Here is one way the South Dakota pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A person in South Dakota wants to sue without a lawyer and has not yet filed anything.
- Confirm you may appear without counsel: Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need South Dakota counsel.
- Draft a complaint / summons and complaint and file it in Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims). E-filing: Self-represented e-filing is available in many Circuit Courts; small claims remains clerk-assisted.
- Serve under SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues). Serve under South Dakota’s Rule 4 analogues — personal service or authorized alternatives. File proof of service. Small claims uses simplified forms.
- Expect discovery under South Dakota civil rules govern discovery in Circuit Court. A jury demand follows Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.
Missing service or a limitations deadline is not excused because the filer is pro se in South Dakota. The evidence companion is the South Dakota evidence guide.
Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
Pleadings are the formal papers that frame the lawsuit. In South Dakota the plaintiff's opening paper is typically a complaint / summons and complaint. It should:
- Identify the parties and the court (Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims) or the small-claims forum).
- Allege facts that, if true, entitle you to relief under a recognized claim.
- Demand judgment (money, injunction, declaratory relief, or other remedies the court can grant).
- Include a jury demand if you want one and the claim is jury-triable.
The defendant responds with an answer (admissions, denials, affirmative defenses) and/or a motion to dismiss challenging legal sufficiency, jurisdiction, or service. Later motions (compel discovery, summary judgment, limine) are usually not “pleadings” in the technical sense, but they drive most civil cases.
South Dakota pleadings opinions
Marvin THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles SUMMERS, Defendant and Appellee
…ipcord. [¶ 4.] Without submitting an answer, Summers made a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that Thompson failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted according to SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5) [hereinafter Rule 12(b)(5) ], which provides: Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-part…
Practitioners open Marvin THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Charles SUMMERS, Defendant and Appellee when South Dakota pleadings turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ipcord. [¶ 4.] Without submitting an answer, Summers made a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that Thompson failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted according to SDCL 15-6-12(b)(5) [hereinafter Rule 12(b)(5) ], which provides: Every defense, in law or fa" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Allen L. GUTHMILLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Defendants and
…plead fraud with particularity. The circuit court granted a motion to dismiss solely on the statute of limitations question and denied the other motions. Guthmiller appeals arguing that the six year statute of limitations period for tort and contract actions should apply, not the three year limitations period found in SDCL 15-2-14.4 and applied by the circuit court, because the…
On pleadings, Allen L. GUTHMILLER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Defendants and speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "The circuit court granted a motion to dismiss solely on the statute of limitations question and denied the other motions." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Tammy RICHARDS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eldon LENZ and West River Mental Health Center, Defendants and
…ed appeal, we hold that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss by defendant, West River Mental Health Center and in granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, Eldon Lenz. Thus, we reverse and remand for trial. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 1987 Edward and Tammy Richards (Richards) approached West River Mental Health Center (WRMH) seek…
On pleadings, Tammy RICHARDS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Eldon LENZ and West River Mental Health Center, Defendants and speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "West River Mental Health Center and in granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant, Eldon Lenz. Thus, we reverse and remand for trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
NORWEST BANK BLACK HILLS, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAPID CITY TEACHERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (NO. 4122)
…his appeal we hold that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and in converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because of the nature of this holding, a detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary. Generally stated, Norwest Bank (Norwest) commenced an action against the Rapid…
NORWEST BANK BLACK HILLS, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAPID CITY TEACHERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (NO. 4122) is worth reading on South Dakota pleadings because the court put the point in its own words: "FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because of the nature of this holding, a detailed recitation of the facts is not necessary." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
John K. NOONEY and Kimberly Nooney, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant
…oncert were not honored at the event. In granting StubHub’s motion to dismiss' .for failure to state a claim, 1 the circuit court considered a document that was not attached to the complaint. ' On appeal, Nooneys argue that the court- erred in considering the document Without • converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Noo-neys also argue that the court…
South Dakota opinions such as John K. NOONEY and Kimberly Nooney, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant are cited where pleadings is disputed. The court stated: "In granting StubHub’s motion to dismiss' .for failure to state a claim, 1 the circuit court considered a document that was not attached to the complaint." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
John C. ANDERSON and Alice L. Anderson, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, D/B/A Farm
…y responded to Andersons’ complaint by filing and serving a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. La-prath’s office received the motion on March 22, 1990, which also contained notice of a hearing to be held the morning of March 28, 1990. Laprath was apparently out of the office and thus did not personally receive notice of the h…
On pleadings, John C. ANDERSON and Alice L. Anderson, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, D/B/A Farm speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Andersons’ complaint by filing and serving a motion to dismiss on the basis that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. La-prath’s office received the motion on March 22, 1990, which also contained notice of a hearing to be held the morning of March 28, 1990." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
How to file and serve in South Dakota
Filing
- Choose the correct forum: Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims) for larger or complex civil cases; small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court when your claim fits generally up to $12,000.
- Prepare the complaint / summons and complaint (and any required cover sheet, civil case information statement, or summons).
- Pay the filing fee or apply for a fee waiver / indigency finding as South Dakota practice allows.
- Obtain a signed summons (or local equivalent) from the clerk after the case is opened.
Governing procedure: South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
Service of process
Filing alone does not start the clock against the defendant in a meaningful way — service does. Authority: SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues).
Serve under South Dakota’s Rule 4 analogues — personal service or authorized alternatives. File proof of service. Small claims uses simplified forms.
Defective service is one of the most common reasons pro se cases are dismissed without prejudice (or worse, delayed until limitations problems appear). Keep copies of every affidavit or return.
South Dakota service opinions
Dolly Mae WELLS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William W. WELLS, Defendant and Appellant
…ent after she left the reservation, he was unable to obtain service of process to begin his divorce action. Crow Creek tribal law does not provide for personal service by publication, as South Dakota law does. SDCL 15-9-7 and -8. *403In August of 1987, Dolly started divorce proceedings against William in circuit court of Pennington County. As a result, William learned the ident…
Dolly Mae WELLS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William W. WELLS, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on South Dakota service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Crow Creek tribal law does not provide for personal service by publication, as South Dakota law does. SDCL 15-9-7 and -8. *403In August of 1987, Dolly started divorce proceedings against William in circuit court of Pennington County." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Jolene GRAJCZYK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John G. TASCA, Defendant and Appellee
…dismissed, reasoning that there was insufficient substitute service of process and a lack of personal jurisdiction (insufficient minimum contacts) to assert jurisdiction over John Tasca, a nonresident putative father. On appeal, Grajczyk con *626 tends that these defenses were waived or, in the alternative, that the service of process was sufficient and that there were sufficie…
Practitioners open Jolene GRAJCZYK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John G. TASCA, Defendant and Appellee when South Dakota service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "John Tasca, a nonresident putative father." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Terry G. LEKANIDIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Anthony M. BENDETTI, Defendant and Appellee
…detti was not a resident of South Dakota, counsel completed service of process pursuant to SDCL 15-7-6 and SDCL 15-7-7, South Dakota's non-resident motorist statutes, by serving Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine (Hazeltine) with a copy of the summons and complaint. Hazeltine signed an admission of service acknowledging her receipt of the documents and the required two dollar f…
On service of process, Terry G. LEKANIDIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Anthony M. BENDETTI, Defendant and Appellee speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "South Dakota, counsel completed service of process pursuant to SDCL 15-7-6 and SDCL 15-7-7, South Dakota's non-resident motorist statutes, by serving Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine (Hazeltine) with a copy of the summons and complaint." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Darrell D. SPADE and Michelle Spade, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Matthew BRANUM, Defendant and Appellee
…. [¶ 6.] Defendant Branum moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. After a hearing, the court granted the motion. The dismissal was with prejudice because the three-year period allowed for filing a personal injury suit under SDCL 15-2-14 had elapsed. However, the property damage claim was dismissed without prejudice. On appeal, plaintiffs assert the following issue…
On service of process, Darrell D. SPADE and Michelle Spade, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Matthew BRANUM, Defendant and Appellee speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Defendant Branum moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. After a hearing, the court granted the motion. The dismissal was with prejudice because the three-year period allowed for filing a personal injury suit under SDCL 15-2-14 had elapsed." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
R.B.O., J.H.C., N.T.H, L.M., L.Z., K.T., J.J., and B.S., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PRIESTS OF the SACRED HEART
…le service-of-process statute. The circuit court also found service of process on PSH was valid under SDCL 15-2-31. We reverse. BACKGROUND [¶ 2.] R.B.O., J.H.C., N.T.H., L.M., L.Z., K.T., J.J. and B.S. (Plaintiffs) are members of a recognized Native American tribe who attended St. Joseph’s Indian Mission School (St. Joseph’s) on the Lower Brule Indian Reservation in South Dakot…
Practitioners open R.B.O., J.H.C., N.T.H, L.M., L.Z., K.T., J.J., and B.S., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PRIESTS OF the SACRED HEART when South Dakota service of process turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The circuit court also found service of process on PSH was valid under SDCL 15-2-31. We reverse. BACKGROUND [¶ 2.] R.B.O., J.H.C., N.T.H., L.M., L.Z., K.T., J.J. and B.S. (Plaintiffs) are members of a recognized Native American tribe who attended St." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Deloris E. WAGNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Clifford TRUESDELL, Defendant and Appellee
…judgment for Clifford Truesdell on the grounds of defective service of process. We reverse and remand. FACTS [¶ 2.]In 1993, Wagner slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by Truesdell in Rapid City, South Dakota. She alleges the fall was the result of Truesdell's negligent maintenance of the lot and that she sustained various injuries and damages as a result thereof. She attemp…
Deloris E. WAGNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Clifford TRUESDELL, Defendant and Appellee is worth reading on South Dakota service of process because the court put the point in its own words: "Clifford Truesdell on the grounds of defective service of process. We reverse and remand. FACTS [¶ 2.]In 1993, Wagner slipped and fell in a parking lot owned by Truesdell in Rapid City, South Dakota." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Registering for e-filing
South Dakota's primary electronic filing path is Odyssey File & Serve (South Dakota).
How to register: Register for South Dakota Odyssey e-filing, verify identity, and pay fees or request a waiver.
Pro se reality check: Self-represented e-filing is available in many Circuit Courts; small claims remains clerk-assisted.
When you e-file:
- Use PDF/A or the portal's accepted formats; flatten forms before upload.
- Check that party names match the caption exactly.
- Calendar the clerk's acceptance email — a rejected filing is often treated as unfiled.
- Serve other parties under the rules (e-service through the portal may not replace initial service of process).
Discovery
After pleadings, parties exchange information. In South Dakota:
South Dakota civil rules govern discovery in Circuit Court.
Typical tools:
- Interrogatories — written questions answered under oath.
- Requests for production — documents, ESI, and tangible things.
- Requests for admission — force yes/no authenticity or fact stipulations.
- Depositions — live testimony under oath (expensive; plan carefully if you are self-represented).
If the other side stonewalls, a motion to compel and, later, sanctions motions are the enforcement path. Courts expect meet-and-confer first in most jurisdictions.
South Dakota discovery opinions
DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ACUITY, a Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A
…ent on the claims. Acuity cross-appeals the circuit court’s discovery orders compelling Acuity’s attorneys to give a deposition in the case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [¶ 2.] On July 28, 1998, DM & E employee Julian Olson (Olson) was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while acting in the scope of his employment. DM & E held a business automobile policy with Acuity, which pro…
Practitioners open DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ACUITY, a Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A when South Dakota discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Acuity cross-appeals the circuit court’s discovery orders compelling Acuity’s attorneys to give a deposition in the case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [¶ 2." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Timothy ANDREWS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RIDCO, INC., Defendant, and Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Defendant and
…ith handling of his workers’ compensation claim. During the discovery stage of the bad faith claim, Andrews filed a motion to compel Twin City to produce wholly unredacted claim files, personnel files, and privilege logs. The circuit court concluded that Twin City impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege and ordered Twin City to produce all of the disputed documents in un…
Timothy ANDREWS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RIDCO, INC., Defendant, and Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Defendant and is worth reading on South Dakota discovery because the court put the point in its own words: "During the discovery stage of the bad faith claim, Andrews filed a motion to compel Twin City to produce wholly unredacted claim files, personnel files, and privilege logs." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Dale TJEERDSMA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GLOBAL STEEL BUILDINGS, INC. and Miracle Steel Corporation, Defendants
…e existence of an arbitration agreement. Extensive pretrial discovery then followed: (1) Tjeerdsma served two sets of interrogatories, (2) Global and Miracle both filed answers to interrogatories, (3) Miracle Steel served interrogatories on Tjeerdsma, (4) Tjeerdsma served answers to Miracle Steel’s interrogatories, (5) defendants filed a request for admissions, (6) Tjeerdsma re…
Practitioners open Dale TJEERDSMA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GLOBAL STEEL BUILDINGS, INC. and Miracle Steel Corporation, Defendants when South Dakota discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "e existence of an arbitration agreement. Extensive pretrial discovery then followed: (1) Tjeerdsma served two sets of interrogatories, (2) Global and Miracle both filed answers to interrogatories, (3) Miracle Steel served interrogatories on Tjeerdsma, (4) Tjeerdsma served answers" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Laura PETERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT WESTERN BANK, INC., Defendant and Appellee
…appeals the circuit court’s denial of her motion to compel discovery on Great Western Bank (the Bank), as well as the court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Bank. She asserts that the Bank was required to join her as a defendant in two foreclosure actions and that additional time for discovery was necessary for her to answer the Bank’s motion for summary judgment…
Practitioners open Laura PETERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT WESTERN BANK, INC., Defendant and Appellee when South Dakota discovery turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Great Western Bank (the Bank), as well as the court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the Bank." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Carol A. KAARUP and Darrell R. Kaarup, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Home
…er that denied Carol and Darrell Kaar-up’s motion to compel discovery. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. In 1979 Carol Kaarup purchased a home that she and her husband Darrell occupied at all material times. On July 24, 1980, First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Canton (First Federal) loaned Kaarups $50,000. Both Carol and Darrell signed the promissory not…
South Dakota opinions such as Carol A. KAARUP and Darrell R. Kaarup, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Home are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "Carol and Darrell Kaar-up’s motion to compel discovery. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. In 1979 Carol Kaarup purchased a home that she and her husband Darrell occupied at all material times." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
PUBLIC ENTITY POOL FOR LIABILITY, (PEPL), Plaintiff and Appellee, v. David SCORE, Individually and as Personal
…y action. We also uphold the circuit court’s rulings in two discovery-related disputes. Background [¶ 2.] On July 21, 1999, Gina Score, a juvenile resident at the State Training School, collapsed during a 2.4 mile forced run-walk supervised by Tamara Wagaman and Raelene Layne. Score later died in the hospital. Criminal charges were brought against Wagaman and Layne. Both were l…
South Dakota opinions such as PUBLIC ENTITY POOL FOR LIABILITY, (PEPL), Plaintiff and Appellee, v. David SCORE, Individually and as Personal are cited where discovery is disputed. The court stated: "We also uphold the circuit court’s rulings in two discovery-related disputes. Background [¶ 2.] On July 21, 1999, Gina Score, a juvenile resident at the State Training School, collapsed during a 2.4 mile forced run-walk supervised by Tamara Wagaman and Raelene Layne." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GUNDERSON’S INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Defendant and
…nt and several liability seeking $100,000 in damages. After discovery had begun but before trial, Gunderson’s moved to compel arbitration. This motion was denied and is the subject of the instant appeal in which Gun-derson’s argue that the trial court erred in denying the motion where it is undisputed that an agreement to arbitrate exists and the opposing party has refused to a…
On discovery, CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GUNDERSON’S INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Defendant and speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "After discovery had begun but before trial, Gunderson’s moved to compel arbitration." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Rules of evidence (short tour)
Trials and many motion hearings are decided on admissible evidence, not on what you know happened. South Dakota applies the South Dakota Rules of Evidence. Core ideas:
- Relevance — does the proof make a fact of consequence more or less probable?
- Authenticity — is the exhibit what you claim it is?
- Hearsay — is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, and if so, does an exception apply?
- Privileges — attorney-client, spousal, and other privileges can block inquiry even when the facts are relevant.
For a full South Dakota walkthrough of hearsay, business records, authenticity, and depositions at trial, read the companion guide: South Dakota Evidence Law: Admissibility, Hearsay, and Authenticity.
Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
Many civil cases never reach a jury. A party may move for summary judgment by showing there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pro se litigants lose these motions when they respond with argument instead of affidavits, authenticated exhibits, and pinpoint record citations.
South Dakota summary-judgment opinions
Scott MOSS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Steve GUTTORMSON, Arnold Guttormson, and Arnie’s Meats and Seafood, Austin
…ation, as well as punitive damages. [¶ 4] Arnie’s moved for summary judgment contending Moss, as an employee, had no standing to assert a claim under South Dakota’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. Also, Arnie’s maintained (1) Moss failed to establish Arnie’s engaged in unlawful activity at the time Moss became a salesperson, and (2) Moss was unable to sho…
On summary judgment, Scott MOSS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Steve GUTTORMSON, Arnold Guttormson, and Arnie’s Meats and Seafood, Austin speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Arnie’s moved for summary judgment contending Moss, as an employee, had no standing to assert a claim under South Dakota’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Willis J. NELSON, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEB WATER DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Edwin Fischbach, Robert
…Willis J. Nelson (Nelson) appeals from a decision granting summary judgment to WEB . Water Development Association (WEB). We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. FACTS Nelson was hired as manager of WEB, a non-profit corporation for water development, in March 1988. In August 1989, WEB and Nelson signed an employment contract in which WEB agreed to employ Nelson for thr…
On summary judgment, Willis J. NELSON, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEB WATER DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., Edwin Fischbach, Robert speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Willis J. Nelson (Nelson) appeals from a decision granting summary judgment to WEB . Water Development Association (WEB). We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. FACTS Nelson was hired as manager of WEB, a non-profit corporation for water development, in March 1988." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce E. THIEWES and Jesse Lee, Defendants
…. CASE SUMMARY Department of Revenue (Department) appeals a summary judgment dismissing its action seeking to collect unpaid sales taxes owed by Inland Marine Sports, Inc.’s (Inland Marine) from corporate officers Bruce E. Thiewes (Thiewes) and Jesse Lee (Lee) personally. We reverse. FACTS In 1983, Thiewes and Lee were officers of Inland Marine. Inland Marine provided Departmen…
Practitioners open STATE of South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce E. THIEWES and Jesse Lee, Defendants when South Dakota summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "CASE SUMMARY Department of Revenue (Department) appeals a summary judgment dismissing its action seeking to collect unpaid sales taxes owed by Inland Marine Sports, Inc.’s (Inland Marine) from corporate officers Bruce E. Thiewes (Thiewes) and Jesse Lee (Lee) personally. We reverse." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Charles L. TAGGART and Charlotte M. Taggart, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, and Ford Motor
…for negligent failure to disclose. The trial court granted summary judgment on both counts and this appeal followed. We affirm. FACTS The focus of this lawsuit is an agreement designated a “Stock Redemption Agreement,” guaranteed by Taggart, whereby SFFT purchased its corporate stock then owned by Vertus Rohrer (Rohrer), president and majority shareholder, coupled with Taggart…
Practitioners open Charles L. TAGGART and Charlotte M. Taggart, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, and Ford Motor when South Dakota summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The trial court granted summary judgment on both counts and this appeal followed. We affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ACUITY, a Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A
…(UM) benefits. DM & E appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment on the claims. Acuity cross-appeals the circuit court’s discovery orders compelling Acuity’s attorneys to give a deposition in the case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [¶ 2.] On July 28, 1998, DM & E employee Julian Olson (Olson) was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident while acting in the scope of his em…
Practitioners open DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ACUITY, a Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A when South Dakota summary judgment turns on the distinction in this sentence: "UM) benefits. DM & E appeals the circuit court’s entry of summary judgment on the claims. Acuity cross-appeals the circuit court’s discovery orders compelling Acuity’s attorneys to give a deposition in the case. FACTUAL BACKGROUND [¶ 2." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Marc WALZ and Carole Walz, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a
…and ignored pertinent case authority submitted by Insured. Summary judgment was granted to Insurer and Insured appeals. We reverse and remand for trial. FACTS [¶ 2] At the time of her injury, Carole Walz (Walz) had been employed by Ultimate Direction of South Dakota, Inc. (Employer) for nearly two years. She had fixed hours of employment from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday thr…
On summary judgment, Marc WALZ and Carole Walz, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, a speaks to the South Dakota dispute in this passage: "Insured. Summary judgment was granted to Insurer and Insured appeals. We reverse and remand for trial. FACTS [¶ 2] At the time of her injury, Carole Walz (Walz) had been employed by Ultimate Direction of South Dakota, Inc. (Employer) for nearly two years." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
James Scott KIRLIN and Kristin Kirlin, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Kim HALVERSON, Defendant, Kelly Cawthorne, and
…vil conspiracy, and negligence. Cawthorne and PKJ moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted their motion and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURE [¶ 2.] Cawthorne worked in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Cawthorne, his wife, Pamela Cawthorne, and father, John Cawthorne were eq…
South Dakota opinions such as James Scott KIRLIN and Kristin Kirlin, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Kim HALVERSON, Defendant, Kelly Cawthorne, and are cited where summary judgment is disputed. The court stated: "Cawthorne and PKJ moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted their motion and we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. FACTS AND PROCEDURE [¶ 2.] Cawthorne worked in the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Marjorie LAMP, Administratrix With Will Annexed of the Estate of Louise Edmundson, Deceased, Plaintiff and
…ustice (On reassignment). Marjorie Lamp (Lamp) appeals from summary judgment in favor of First National Bank of Garretson (Bank). We reverse and remand for trial. FACTS Lamp is the administratrix of the estate of her mother, Louise Edmundson (Ed-mundson). Edmundson was residing in a nursing home in Garretson, South Dakota, at all times relevant to this appeal. Ed-mundson mainta…
Marjorie LAMP, Administratrix With Will Annexed of the Estate of Louise Edmundson, Deceased, Plaintiff and is worth reading on South Dakota summary judgment because the court put the point in its own words: "On reassignment). Marjorie Lamp (Lamp) appeals from summary judgment in favor of First National Bank of Garretson (Bank). We reverse and remand for trial. FACTS Lamp is the administratrix of the estate of her mother, Louise Edmundson (Ed-mundson)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
How LawDiver can help
LawDiver is built for researching the same authorities a courtroom expects — not for inventing cites.
- LawDiver search — From this guide page, the search rail is scoped to South Dakota. Search phrases like
pro se,service of process,motion to compel, or your statute number. - Corpus-linked opinions — Every case block above links to a
/casedisplayopinion id that exists in LawDiver's caselaw corpus. Do not paste outside citations into filings unless you have verified them. - Statutes — Where South Dakota codes are mirrored, open the linked statute sections from this article and read the live text before quoting.
- GoodLaw / citator workflow — Before you rely on an older opinion, check how later South Dakota cases treat it.
- Evidence companion — Use the South Dakota evidence guide when you are preparing exhibits or opposing a motion in limine.
- AI research with grounding — Prefer tools that require retrieval from your matter and the LawDiver corpus over chatbots that invent case names.
LawDiver does not file documents for you, give legal advice, or replace a lawyer when the stakes, opposing counsel, or entity-representation rules require one.
South Dakota case law highlights
Use the topic sections above for pro se practice, pleadings, service, discovery, and summary judgment. Re-run LawDiver searches before hearings — new published opinions appear continuously.
Checklist before you file in South Dakota
- Confirm you (not an entity) may appear pro se for this claim.
- Pick small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court vs Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims) based on amount and remedy.
- Draft a complaint / summons and complaint that states facts and a legal theory.
- Register on Odyssey File & Serve (South Dakota) (or confirm paper filing is allowed).
- Arrange proper service under SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues).
- Calendar answer deadlines, discovery cutoffs, and any jury-demand deadline.
- Research controlling South Dakota cases and the South Dakota Rules of Evidence on LawDiver.
- Consider limited-scope or full representation if the other side has counsel or the claim exceeds small-claims complexity.
Key takeaways
- Individuals may appear pro se. Entities generally need South Dakota counsel.
- Main trial forum: Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims). Smaller disputes often belong in small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court (generally up to $12,000).
- Procedure: South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Opening paper: a complaint / summons and complaint.
- Service: SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues). Serve under South Dakota’s Rule 4 analogues — personal service or authorized alternatives.
- E-filing: Odyssey File & Serve (South Dakota). Self-represented e-filing is available in many Circuit Courts; small claims remains clerk-assisted.
- Pair this page with the LawDiver search rail (scoped to South Dakota) and the South Dakota evidence guide.
Primary search phrases this page targets: file a lawsuit without a lawyer South Dakota; South Dakota pro se; South Dakota Odyssey e-filing; how to sue in South Dakota.
Contents
- What is a statute, case, rule, and regulation?
- Can you litigate pro se in South Dakota?
- Role of the judge and the jury
- Pleadings: complaint, answer, and motions
- How to file and serve in South Dakota
- Registering for e-filing
- Discovery
- Rules of evidence (short tour)
- Summary judgment and other dispositive motions
- How LawDiver can help
- South Dakota case law highlights
- Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
How do I file a lawsuit without a lawyer in South Dakota?
Prepare a complaint / summons and complaint, file it in the correct South Dakota court (Circuit Court (Magistrate Court for smaller claims) or small-claims procedure in Magistrate/Circuit Court), pay or waive the fee, obtain a summons, and complete service under SDCL ch. 15-6 (Rule 4 analogues). Register for Odyssey File & Serve (South Dakota) when e-filing is required or available.
What is the difference between a statute and a court rule?
A statute creates substantive rights and duties. A court rule (such as South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure) controls procedure — captions, service, discovery, and trial mechanics. You usually need both.
Do I need to register for e-filing?
Self-represented e-filing is available in many Circuit Courts; small claims remains clerk-assisted. Registration steps: Register for South Dakota Odyssey e-filing, verify identity, and pay fees or request a waiver.
Will I get a jury?
Demand a jury under applicable rules for eligible claims. Small claims are non-jury.
What happens in discovery?
South Dakota civil rules govern discovery in Circuit Court.
How does LawDiver help a pro se litigant?
It lets you search and read South Dakota opinions and statutes that actually exist in the LawDiver corpus, with links you can verify — reducing the risk of hallucinated citations — while you still remain responsible for filing, service, and courtroom advocacy.
Disclaimer
LawDiver publishes this guide for public legal-information and SEO education purposes. It is not a substitute for advice from a licensed South Dakota attorney. Court rules, e-filing vendors, fee schedules, and jurisdictional limits change. Verify every citation and deadline against official South Dakota sources and the live LawDiver corpus before relying on them in a filing.