Legal Opinion

Carstensen Contracting, Inc. v. Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 2002No. NonePublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] In this construction contract dispute, we must decide whether a requirement in the contract that the general contractor pay “all claims growing out of the lawful demand of’ subcontractors, laborers, mechanics, materialmen, furnishers and suppliers means claims only on which a mechanic’s lien has been filed. In granting summary judgment, the circuit court held that the general contractor had no duty to pay the unpaid bills from a bankrupt subcontractor’s suppliers, since the suppliers filed no mechanic’s liens to secure their claims. Because the filing of a mechanic’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Malcolm v. MalcolmSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
  2. American State Bank v. AdkinsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Brooks v. HayesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Trouten v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Economic Aero Club, Inc. v. Avemco Insurance Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hofeldt v. MehlingSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Parks v. CooperSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Fenske Media Corp. v. Banta Corp.South Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Lien v. LienSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Prunty Construction, Inc. v. City of CanistotaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004

11 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