# State v. Hartman

> South Dakota Supreme Court · July 7, 1977 · 256 N.W.2d 131

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851202

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bruce HARTMAN, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 7, 1977
- **Citations:** 256 N.W.2d 131; 1977 S.D. LEXIS 167
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Morgan
- **Judges:** Zastrow, Dunn, Wollman, Porter, Morgan
- **Cited by:** 29 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/9851202

## Opinion text

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent for two reasons. First I consider Buckingham to be a sound well-reasoned decision. I don’t read the majority opinion as modifying it but rather as overruling it, which brings up my second reason, the doctrine of stare decisis. While this doctrine is not a rule of law but rather a judicial policy the courts generally do not lightly overrule a precedent. I find no sound reason for doing so in this instance. I do not consider that a review of the arguments as briefed in the Buckingham appeal constitutes a satisfactory reason.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851202. Public record. Not legal advice.