Legal Opinion

Jivelekas v. City of Worland

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1976No. 4499PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSE, Justice.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES

The plaintiffs charge that damage to their home was caused from a sewer backup which occurred as a result of the defendant-city’s negligent planning, construction and maintenance of its sewer line. Plaintiffs ask money damages and injunc-five relief to compel the city “to take necessary steps to replace the sewer line.” Additionally, the plaintiffs-appellants rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to supply evidence of defendant’s failure to exercise due care.1

In response, the defendant-appellee-City of Worland contends that it was not negligent in…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302Illinois Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Williams v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1961

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Worthington v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Oroz v. Board of County Com'rs of Carbon CountyWyoming Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Cauley v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
  4. Town of Jackson v. ShawWyoming Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Davies v. City of BathSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1976

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API