Legal Opinion
La Mourea v. Rhude
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided December 13, 1940No. 32,555PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Stone, Justice.
The one question is whether plaintiff may recover on a contract, to which he was not a party, between the city of Duluth and defendants whereby the latter obligated themselves to do certain work of sewer construction. Plaintiff seeks recovery for consequential damage to his near-by real estate caused by the blasting operations of defendants.
The contract contemplated excavation in solid rock, and that the work could be done only “by the use of heavy charges of explosives * * * the use and effect of which might, and very probably would be felt and cause damage * * in the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Little v. . BanksNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Pond v. . New Rochelle Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Jefferson v. AschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Smyth v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Harris v. Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of City of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1975
- Buchman Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Regents of the U. of M.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Freigy v. Gargaro Company, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1945
- Larson v. Heintz Construction Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1959
- St. Joseph Light & Power Co. v. Kaw Valley Tunneling, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1979
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.