South Dakota Statutes
§ 53-9-1 — Contract provisions contrary to law, unlawful.
A contract provision contrary to an express provision of law or to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited or otherwise contrary to good morals, is unlawful.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
South Dakota § 53-9-1 (Contract provisions contrary to law, unlawful.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Greene v. Morgan, Theeler, Cogley & Petersen
1998 SD 16 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
State Ex Rel. Meierhenry v. Spiegel, Inc.
277 N.W.2d 298 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1979)
Hieb v. Opp
458 N.W.2d 797 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1990)
Rossi Fine Jewelers, Inc. v. Gunderson
2002 SD 82 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)
Nature's 10 Jewelers v. Gunderson
2002 SD 80 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)
Currey v. Currey
2002 SD 98 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2002)
McKellips v. MacKintosh
475 N.W.2d 926 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)
Hot Stuff Foods, LLC v. Mean Gene's Enterprises, Inc.
468 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (D. South Dakota, 2006)
Richland State Bank v. Household Credit Services, Inc.
340 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (D. South Dakota, 2004)
AMCO Insurance Co. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
2014 SD 20 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
Behrens v. Milliken
461 N.W.2d 276 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1990)
Black Hills Truck & Trailer, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue
2016 SD 47 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2016)
Bradley Grain Co. v. Peterson
267 N.W.2d 836 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1978)
Sturzenbecher v. Sioux County Ranch, LLC
2025 S.D. 24 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2025)
Dietz v. Fink
(D. South Dakota, 2024)
Grand River Cooperative Grazing Association v. United States
(D. South Dakota, 2020)
Legislative History
CivC 1877, § 953; CL 1887, § 3577; RCivC 1903, § 1271; RC 1919, § 892; SDC 1939, § 10.0701.