Legal Opinion
Foss v. Spitznagel
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 1959No. File 9762PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBiegelmeier, J.
The amended complaint in this action states that the plaintiff was a taxpayer of Sioux Falls, South Dakota; that he brought the action for and on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers; that three of the defendants were the city commissioners thereof and as such had control of a fund known as the “Auditorium Building Fund”, which fund was created by Ch. 488 of the South Dakota Session Laws of 1953; that by a resolution of May 9, 1955, said defendants employed the defendant Harold Spitznagel and Associates (which defendant we will refer to herein as Spitznagel) as architects for a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Harlingen Independent School Dist. v. PageTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Stephens County v. J. N. McCammon, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1932
- Northwestern Engineering Co. v. EllermanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
- City & County of San Francisco v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Tackett v. MiddletonTexas Commission of Appeals · 1926
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Canton Concrete Products Corp. v. AlderSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Estate of HoferSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
- Murray v. City of Sioux FallsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- City of Freeman v. SalisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
- Sanderson v. City of MobridgeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1982
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.