# Black Hills Jewelry Manufacturing Co. v. Felco Jewel Industries, Inc.

> South Dakota Supreme Court · June 29, 1983 · 336 N.W.2d 153

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9525256

## Case

- **Full name:** BLACK HILLS JEWELRY MANUFACTURING CO., a South Dakota Corporation; F.L. Thorpe & Company, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation; And Stamper Black Hills Gold Jewelry, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FELCO JEWEL INDUSTRIES, INC., a Corporation; South Dakota Gold Company, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation; And Johnson Matthey, an International Jewelry Conglomerate, Defendants and Appellees; BLACK HILLS JEWELRY MANUFACTURING CO., a South Dakota Corporation; F.L. Thorpe & Company, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation; And Stamper Black Hills Gold Jewelry, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GOLD RUSH, INC., a North Dakota Corporation; GRMCO, Inc., a South Dakota Corporation; And Confidential Casting Corp., a Corporation, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 336 N.W.2d 153; 1983 S.D. LEXIS 357
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wollman
- **Judges:** Henderson, Fosheim, Dunn, Morgan, Wollman
- **Cited by:** 70 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9525256

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that courts “look beyond the nominal parties, and treat all those whose interests are involved in the litigation and who conduct and control the action or defense as real parties . . . .”
- applying Noerr-Pennington to state antitrust claims, but holding it did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case

## Opinion text

WOLLMAN, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I am gratified that we have made clear that the restrictive doctrine of mutuality should no longer be applied to bar those who were not parties, or in privity, to the earlier litigation from asserting the defens *160 es of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Cf. Melbourn v. Benham, 292 N.W.2d 335 , 339 n. 3 (S.D.1980); Id. at 339 (Wollman, J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9525256. Public record. Not legal advice.