HAMAD ASSAM CORP. v. Novotny
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
MEIERHENRY, Justice.
[¶ 1.] Hamad Assam Corporation (Assam) brought this action claiming it had a prescriptive easement over a portion of farmland owned by Thomas Novotny (Thomas). The trial court ruled against Assam. Assam appeals and we affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Assam purchased forty acres of land in Charles Mix County in 1993 (referred to as the Corporate 40). The Corporate 40 abuts forty acres of land owned by the Novotny family since 1946. A creek bed runs from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the Corporate 40. An unimproved section line runs along the property’s west boundary and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Concerned Citizens of Brunswick County Taxpayers Ass'n v. State Ex Rel. RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Sioux City Boat Club v. MulhallSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1962
- Ward v. HarperSupreme Court of Virginia · 1987
- Schultz v. DewSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1997
- Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- SCHONBEK v. ChaseSupreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- Underhill v. MattsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2016
- Gangle v. SpirySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
- Helleberg v. EstesSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020
- Fuoss v. Dahlke Family Limited PartnershipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.