Legal Opinion

Usletten v. City of Brookings

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1928No. File No. 6595PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to. constitute a cause of action, and from an order overruling the demurrer they appeal.

The complaint alleges in substance that defendant Grimm owns a lot on the corner of Hain and Third streets in defendant city, on which he has a brick building, where he carries on a store business; that in the sidewalk on Third street, alongside the building, Grimm has an open cellarway, guarded by an iron railing constructed many years ago, the top rail of which had been broken off about a year before the injury to.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mayor & Council v. BooneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
  2. Langlois v. City of CohoesNew York Supreme Court · 1890
  3. City of Whitewright v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1900

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Usletten v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Usletten v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Usletten v. City of BrookingsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API