# Groseth International, Inc. v. Tenneco, Inc.

> South Dakota Supreme Court · September 30, 1987 · 410 N.W.2d 159

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583204

## Case

- **Full name:** GROSETH INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Clifford Groseth, Plaintiffs and Appellants. v. TENNECO, INC., and J.I. Case Company, Defendants and Appellees; GROSETH INTERNATIONAL, INC., and Clifford Groseth, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., Defendant and Appellee
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 30, 1987
- **Citations:** 410 N.W.2d 159; 1987 S.D. LEXIS 357
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Sabers
- **Judges:** Sabers, Morgan, Henderson, Wuest, Fosheim, Ret, Miller
- **Cited by:** 102 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/9583204

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between IH and one of its dealers
- holding "just provocation [under § 37-5-3] requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer."

## Opinion text

I am hereby authorized to state that FOSHEIM, Retired Justice, joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.
SABERS, Justice.
Supplement to Opinion for Clarification Purposes Only
The opinion in the above-entitled appeal was handed down on July 15, 1987, and appellees have filed their request for reconsideration upon various grounds which the majority of the court does not find to be persuasive. It appears, however, that language in the opinion on # 15329, relating to the liability of Case/Tenneco for IHC dealers with respect to (a) express assumption and (b) implied assumption may be subject to misunderstanding and that clarification is appropriate.
The language in the opinion must be considered in the context of the issue of the propriety of summary judgment in favor of Case/Tenneco against Groseth, not the pro *177 priety of summary judgment for Groseth against Case/Tenneco. Nor was it intended to imply that the latter was proper. Case/Tenneeo’s liability, if any, on these issues is for the jury to determine on proper instructions.
With this clarification, the opinion as handed down is in all other regards reaffirmed.
MORGAN, J., concurs.
HENDERSON, J., concurs specially.
WUEST, C.J., and FOSHEIM, Retired Justice, dissent.
MILLER, J., not having been a member of the court at the time this action was submitted to the court, did not participate.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583204. Public record. Not legal advice.