Springer v. Cahoy
South Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Jasper v. JasperSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
- Cobb v. DaughertyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2010
- Griffeth v. EidNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
- 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
- Samuel J. Tilden v. Linda J. JacksonWyoming Supreme Court · 2025
- Ehlebracht v. Deuel Cnty. Pln. Comm'n and Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLCSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2022
- Fuoss v. Dahlke Family Limited PartnershipSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2023
- Springer v. CahoySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2013
- Heumiller v. HansenSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2020