Legal Opinion

Springer v. Cahoy

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 2012No. 26107, 26108, 26116PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZINTER, Justice.

[¶ 1.] The central issue in these consolidated appeals is whether an easement implied from prior use exists. Dale Springer, Dorothy Springer, Roger Springer, and Daniel Springer (Springers) own a forty-acre parcel of property. Andy Cahoy owns an adjoining forty-acre parcel. After Springers purchased their parcel, they began using Cahoy’s parcel to access their property. When Cahoy prohibited Spring-ers from crossing Cahoy’s parcel, Spring-ers filed suit claiming an implied easement on Cahoy’s parcel. The circuit court concluded that an easement implied from pri- or use exists…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Jasper v. JasperSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Cobb v. DaughertyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Griffeth v. EidNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Townsend v. Yankton Super 8 Motel, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Samuel J. Tilden v. Linda J. JacksonWyoming Supreme Court · 2025
  2. Ehlebracht v. Deuel Cnty. Pln. Comm'n and Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Fuoss v. Dahlke Family Limited PartnershipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023
  4. Springer v. CahoySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Heumiller v. HansenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API