as the defendant. Id. at 1157-58. The case was dismissed by the lower court, but reversed by the Eighth Circuit using the doctrine of equitable tolling. Id. at 1160-61. That court was careful to note that Warren was not a case of imprudent legal practice, but rather confusion on the part of a pro se plaintiff created by the government itself. Id. [¶ 44.] Imprudent legal practice is not reasonable conduct sufficient to invoke eq- nitable tolling. Peterson, 2000 SD 27, ¶ 16, 607 N.W.2d at 13 (quoting Braaten v. Deere & Company, 569 N.W.2d 563, 564 (N.D.1997)). When the doctrine has been applied in favor of the plaintiff in South Dakota, the plaintiff has been victimized by active, fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendant. See Smith v. Neville, 539 N.W.2d 679, 682 (S.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 45.] I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court
holding that equitable exception to one year limit applied where defendant had no reason to believe that plaintiff would increase the scope of claims after the filing of the original complaint holding equitable tolling applied when state and states insurance adjuster engaged in affirmative conduct that would have led a reasonable person to believe the state had received timely notice of the claim holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that good cause did not exist where movant was on notice of information that with some investigation would have led to timely discovery of the basis for the motion to amend