• About AIA
    • About AIA
    • AIA’s Executive Team
    • Agent Testimonials
  • News
    • Bail Bond Blog
    • Recent Bail Articles
  • Bail Bond Resources
    • Become a Bail Agent
    • Bail Bond FAQs
    • Bail Research Library
    • State by State Bail Directory
    • Upcoming State Association Meetings and Events
  • Other Bonds
  • Contact

South Dakota Case Laws

You are here: Home / South Dakota Bail Resources / South Dakota Case Laws

South Dakota Case Laws

Click on the below to read South Dakota Case Laws for the following years:
2012
2010

South Dakota Case Law 2012

In Safety National Casualty Co. v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 2012 WL 974955 (S.D.Tex. March 21, 2012) the parties made cross motions for summary judgment as to six immigration bonds on which DHS sent notice to the bonding agent, but not to the surety.  The court reviewed its prior decisions in the case and the Fifth Circuit’s decision reported at 2011 WL 5138639 (5th Cir. October 31, 2011) and applied the law as explained in those decisions to the six bonds.  The court granted DHS summary judgment against the bond agent because DHS sent it timely notice to produce the alien.  However, the court also granted summary judgment to the surety because DHS failed to send it notice.  Thus, the court enforced the Fifth Circuit’s holding that if the “notice to both” box was checked, notice to both was not a condition precedent to any liability on the bond but that only party who was sent notice was liable.

South Dakota Case Law 2010

In Dominguez v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 2010 WL 697274 (S.D.Tex. February 23, 2010) the defendant agency and surety filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs (and some members of the putative class they purported to represent) breached their immigration bond contracts and were obligated to indemnity the defendants for costs and attorneys fees should the defendants prevail.  The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  The court denied the motion.  It had supplemental jurisdiction and the indemnity provision, as interpreted by the defendants, could apply to the case.

Search

Recent Blog Posts

The Public Responds With an Emphatic “NO” to Cashless Bail
The Public Responds With an Emphatic “NO” to Cashless Bail
September 10,2025 - 2:08 pm

© Copyright 2005-2025 AIA Surety All Rights Reserved | 800.935.2245

  • About AIA
  • Bail Resources
  • Become an Agent
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Security
  • Accessibility
Skip to content
Open toolbar

Accessibility

  • Increase Text
  • Decrease Text
  • Grayscale
  • High Contrast
  • Negative Contrast
  • Light Background
  • Links Underline
  • Readable Font
  • Reset
  • Help